DUBAI AND WASHINGTON — Jordan was compelled to join US airstrikes against the Islamic State (IS) in Syria after the government uncovered a number of militants crossing its border with Iraq, a Jordanian government source told Defense News.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140923/defreg04/309230036/mideast-countries-play-major-role-islamic-state-strikes/

The Associated Press ?@AP  47s
BREAKING: Netherlands to send 6 F-16 jets to coalition fighting Islamic State in Iraq.

I thought those were obsolete, guess not when you need to kill shit on the ground.

LOL

Sean Hannity ?@seanhannity  15m
Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm John Kirby says Iraqi forces are holding their ground in Baghdad to protect city from #ISIS

That's kinda like saying you are doing a hell of a job...fighting them in your front yard...

Might wanna push that front line back a bit.  

Rami(?) ?@RamiAlLolah  8s
Wise.. #Turkey Official: No involvement in the 'War on #ISIS' unless a clear plan by the West on how to deal with #Assad in #Syria is agreed

Erdogan says Turkey will join fight against Islamic State

After much speculation about where it stands, Turkey is now signaling that it will no longer sit on the fence regarding the Islamic State (IS) and will participate in efforts against it in any way needed.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/turkey-syria-iraq-united-states-join-isis-coalition.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#

Maybe blowing up the ISIS black market oil industry had somthing to do with it.  

Operation Newer Dawn

Turkey... There's a thought. I guess there are alternatives to sucking nuclear Iranian cock.

YPG (Kuridish commies) fighting in Syria with some Western equipment

Live firefight on CNN in Syria between Kurdish forces and ISIS

Turkey making a firm commitment to military action? Unlikely, to put it mildly. There aren't going to be any Turkish boots on the ground in either Iraq or Syria. They'll  run a few sorties and drop a few 1000 lb bombs at most.

Ghazi ?@abuaminah_  6m
Arabic #IS supporters request supporters of the Khilafa and State to not post news concerning assaults etc 2 conceal positions of mujahideen

Fox News link



A pretty much what everyone here already said. To get Irans help, you are gonna have to give them nukes. More good ideas from the folks who brought us Obama care.

You are blowing what is going on way out of proportion. No one is saying they can have nukes.

Essentially, we'd be agreeing Iran could be a threshold nuclear state if the stated proposal is accepted and agreed to by all parties at the talks. However, Congress is the only one that can lift sanctions and I don't see such a deal getting Congress' approval, which will likely cause any such deal to fall apart, making the Administration look incompetent and impotent to the rest of the international community. Bravo Obama, bravo.

Why do we want their help?



ISIS has eyes set on Iran any damn way. Why not bomb them into Iran, let them turn Iran into a clusterfuck, and then bomb Iran too?



 

You actually believe Iran when they say "peaceful purposes"

Well they are mostly of the religion of peace.

I think we need a thread re-title as ISIS (ISIL) is not al-Qaeda.

Only a fool would solicit Iran's help. Iran won't help us, only use it as on opportunity to get around sanctions, and advance the nuke program. Even if we have some slight common interest, or common enemy, they will strike a deal with ISIS that fucks us in the end.

Partnering, or making deals with Iran is the only thing more stupid at this point than just continuing to ignore the problem. There was really only a few ways to fuck this up, and so far, we are on track to check all of those blocks. What an epic national security disaster we are witnessing.

This is what you were advocating for right? Alliance with Iran?  And when people said this is what would happen you continued to spew stupidity about how getting in bed with Iran would work.

And now you say it's a dumb move by Obama?

Memlik Pasha ?@MemlikPasha  6m
Despite intense US and French air activity over the Fallujah-Ramadi corridor, #IS was still able to mass mounted forces, inc/ capture

ISF Humvees for two large-scale assaults on the IA Camp Albu Aytha base SW of Ramadi during the past week.

You mean airstrikes without troops on the ground to secure cleared areas aren't working?



 

That is not true.



The reform movement is not the only constituency in Iran that wants to see relations improved with the West.



This group of pragmatic conservatives still exists today, just as it did in 2004 when the article was written. Relations with Iran deteriorated precipitously around this time period, following our inclusion of Iran in the "Axis of Evil" and our invasion of Iraq precisely because we chose to bank on "regime change" instead of improving relations with the pragmatic aspects of the regime. As a result, these "Pragmatic Conservatives", regime insiders with both regime access and religious standing, were marginalized and largely silenced.

The attempted Green Revolution in 2009 soften the wall that had silenced these pragmatic conservatives. Cracks began to form that showed that the pragmatic conservatives were again beginning to have a voice within the regime to soften the discontent among Iranians at home and in Iran's relations abroad. The change in the region in Egypt, Tunisia and else where again gave them a platform to agrue that Iran also needs to change to prevent regime collapse.

In order to create the necessary political space for these Pragmatic Conservatives to counteract the influence of the "firebrand" slant of regime loyalists, we need to offer them a path to development and rapprochement that they can sell to silence their political rivals.



All the previous attempts at "engagement" with the Iranians you cite were bound to fail. They never were about establishing a relationship of cooperation and a building of trust, but instead, a list of demands of what the Iranians had to do to get off our shit list. There was never a strategy to improve relations, just an exchange of demands of what we were willing to accept from the Iranians. That was always a recipe for failure.



Yes, the Iranians are who they say they are. And while everyone's true hope is another Green Revolution and a change of the regime overnight, the reality is the best chance of change is evolutional change from inside the regime itself. I already know what you are thinking. "The mythical search for the moderate Iranian!" Here come the jokes about the Moderate Iranian who doesn't saw your head off, he just shoots you instead. this isn't about a search for a "moderate Iranian", it's about the empowerment of "pragmatic" Conservatives within the regime who believe that Revolutionary ideals are secondary to the wellbeing and prosperity of Iran as a nation, and therefore, are willing to take a risk on working to establish better relations. And such pragmatists do exist.

Just as Ray Takeyh states in his article, the Conservatives are not a monolithic block. Some of the establishment does want change. Rouhani is part of the establishment, and he has been a member of the supreme National security counsel since the 80's. I generally believe he does want better relations with the West, but only to strengthen Iran on Iran's terms and to do so at the West's expense. He is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" as Netanyahu states. He's not the man to bring Iran out of obstructionism and into detente that would benefit the West.

But there are others within the regime that have the standing and ability to lead Iran in the direction of true detente and rapprochement; they just need to be empowered to do so, through a process which builds cooperation and trust, planting the seeds for such rapprochement to take place.

No, you have it wrong, again. The green movement is the least likely element to ever be capable of fostering change in Iran (though it would give us the best results). As you said, they are broken. They have no leadership, and they are effectively suppressed at every turn by the security state. While new leaders could emerge, and precipitous events could trigger another uprising, it is a remote possibility (though, still tangible enough to worry the regime).

The more likely avenue of change is from within the regime itself. Through reassurance and cooperation in areas of mutual interest, and the improvement of Iran's security paranoia, we demonstrate we are capable of setting aside our differences and our ideological objections to the regime itself; this would create the space necessary to empower the "pragmatic" wing of the Iranian regime to coax the Iranian leadership onto a more pragmatic path.  By showing Iranian Conservatives we no longer seek "regime change" through complete overthrow of the system itself, we create new opportunities for the regime to moderate its actions through internal change.

Could  the regime reject this opening from the West and use it as an opportunity to take advantage of "perceived weakness and a softening of our stance"? They could try. But this is why this would have to be a step for step process where we didn't get too far out ahead of ourselves; we'd need to proceed cautiously so that we maintained the ability to dial back and readjust as necessary to prevent leaving ourselves exposed to Iranian rogue behavior.



No where in what I have described, either in my previous posts, or in this one, have I advocated legitimizing the Iranian nuclear weapons program. However, Iran is always going to have some type of nuclear capability. We can't put that genie back in the bottle unless we invent time travel. There is no way we are ever going to get the Iranians to give up their entire enrichment program, and military action will not achieve that outcome either.Trying to placate the Arabs and the Israelis in that regard is a losing proposition.



No. It is not. Even if you think Iranian internal change is a pipe dream, using one enemy to kill another isn't self defeating. You are just one enemy lighter. And if the Iranians attempt to cross the threshold, we will still have the same bad options as we would have had had we decided not to cooperate with them on killing ISIS. There is no down side in terms of containing WMD.



Which was true in 2001 and we still cooperated with them then in Afghanistan... Precedent tells us your point is pointless.

No. I believe they want the capability to have an option to build nuclear weapons should they so choose. I don't think they are going for a bomb at this time and neither do our intelligence community or the IAEA.

LOL secret programs, how do they work?

Yes,  I argued for cooperation with Iran on ISIS, not a formal alliance.

There is a way for Iran to keep parts of its enrichment capability without jeopardizing nuclear breakout. What Obama is offering is too much. Essentially,  Obama is a shitty bargainer. He has "blinked". I specifically said in my previous statements,  that should Iran fail to come to agreeable terms with the West,  attempts at engagement should be abandoned. Instead,  Obama is caving and giving the Iranians even better terms that should not be acceptable to the West. So yes,  this is Obama's fault,  and no,  it is not anything I ever advocated for. Get your fucking facts straight.

Giving away the store to Iran under the pretenses of an acceptable bargain is nothing I ever advocated for.

They tried asking nicely like you suggested. Iran laughed. As we have been saying, this is the only way to get them to pretend to be on our side. And it won't have the desired outcome.

The simple version is that it is clearly a stupid idea. Almost anyone can see that. Why even start the conversation, if you know what they want, and aren't willing to give it?

That's why most of us here said no fucking way from the get go. It is a full retard move, and a lose lose situation for us. Ether they successfully tell us to get fucked, or get what they want via nukes. Ray Charles saw this coming, but I guess you didn't.

Lol. You notice that Iran hasn't managed to keep much secret about their program.

I guess you don't know how secrets work.

It is not a stupid idea. We have the power to create more leverage through additional sanctions if talks collapse. Then the Iranians can reevaluate their negotiating position and see if they would like to reconsider our offer.

You are stuck playing checkers instead of chess. That's ok. We have educated people to figure these things out for you.

I do. And nothing stays secret in Iran for long. This has been proven over the last decade.

They are quaking in their sandals over "additional" sanctions. Lol. We have no real stick, and it is dumb to use nuclear carrots. In short, it's just dumb.

Arguing with you is pointless. You lack the intelligence to even have this conversation. Lol

We aren't offering them nuclear carrots. They already have the nuclear capability they need (nuclear carrots). We're asking them to rollback what they already have. Us saying that we will accept them having a certain level of a nuclear program isn't a carrot for the Iranians. The removal of sanctions is. The sanctions are the only reason they are at the table. They do not fear a military attack. They fear additional sanctions and the collapse of their economy.

LOL. Is there any Iranian propaganda that you don't fully subscribe to?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/irans-dinner-diplomacy

No joke. The only difference between MK262 and the MOIS is that MOIS is smart enough to know their position is bullshit.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/fight-lives

Long but interesting article about the history of Kurdistan in relation to their current battle against ISIS, and why the US has been holding back on the amount of support it gives the Kurds (short answer: US policy is for "One Iraq" and the Kurds may achieve independence with too much military support).

Good counter argument. Very well reasoned. You're a scholar and a gentlemen.

Here's an article that should make you happy Rooster. Haha.

The implication that we will acquiesce to Iranian nukes is ridiculous though. Allowing them to keep a limited enrichment capability is a far cry from agreeing to Iranian nukes.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/25/will-iran-sell-out-al-qaeda-for-nukes.html

You keep pointing up the pseudo rapprochement of 2001 like there was something to it. You're hinging your argument on a completely demonstrably false premise, and then asking a bunch of people with varying levels of experience, time and interest in the Iranian problem to somehow jettison that knowledge because its different this time.

A significant portion of AQ's core leadership spent over a DECADE in Iran, before during and after 2001.

The problem with your argument MK262 is that it is, nearly to a word, the same bullshit the Iranians and their facilitators in the West were trying to sell us when they were actively supporting the SGs with EFPs and bottling up the Brits in Basra with Sadrist militia. And in 1998, during Clinton's second attempt of direct entreaties to the Iranians, of course after the ones in 1993 fell flat, which of course were in response to the ones that failed throughout the Reagan Administration.

The problem is that you've never point out how this time, its somehow going to be different. You don't have 11 years Iranian-American relations to refute like it didn't happen. You have over 30 years over relations, extending back to the first olive branches offered the Iranian regime under Reagan.

Iran doesn't want to be a normal nation state, as we would recognize one, starting with the religious principles of the Velat e Fiqh. Like the 30+ years of Iranian relations, you have to prove that somehow the current crop of Qomists are somehow going to fundamentally change the founding principles of the Islamic Republic.

Iran is the only country that properly stands up to Israel and their filthy little theocracy.

For some, thats enough for a life long love affair.

I know the history. Trying to break the impasse is the whole point. Will it be any different than previous attempts?  Who knows. I don't have a crystal ball. But attempting to find ways to do so and improve relations with the Iranians is worth the effort even if it fails. As long as we are cautious,  the risks can be managed.

Others have asserted  that the Iranians interests are inimical to our own so attempting cooperation is pointless. That is currently only the case because of the mistrust and poor relationship we currently have. With improvement in relations, the tensions of regional competition could be de-escalated and the Iranians could actually find reasons to buy into the prevailing international order. There is nothing set in stone that mandates Iran will remain a revisionist state indefinitely. New leadership will eventually emerge. Gradual improvement of ties with Iran, that puts us in a position to seize on an opportunity when the time is right, is worth investing in.

Obviously,  we cannot create rapprochement by ourselves. Nor can rapprochement be had through weakness and simple appeasement.

The Iranians must want rapprochement as well. Attempting to test the waters and gauge the Iranians' openness to such efforts isn't a fool's errand. It is diplomacy.

Giving up before even trying never got anyone anywhere. I'm not arguing for blind faith in diplomacy,  just a willingness to give it a sincere effort. If those efforts are rebuffed,  so be it. As long as we are not stupid in the way we go about it,  we won't have lost anything.

If you want to resign yourself to battling the Iranians for influence into perpetuity, with no attempt to improve our relations or decrease tensions, then it's going to be a long hard slough and the outcomes are not favorable for us or the region. I don't see the harm in the attempt.

Any Iranian influence gained through the destruction of ISIS will be short lived. Other problems on the Iranians' periphery will continue to fester, detracting from any possible gains. An ISIS free Iraq will still have sectarian violence and remain unstable. Assad and his regime will continue to be stuck in a quagmire for the foreseeable future, acting as a continual drain on Iranian resources. The Taliban will once again be a source of concern for the Iranians after we depart Afghanistan. The competition between Iran and the GCC will only continue to intensify. The list goes on.

I'm sure I'm never going to convince you that what I'm arguing for isn't naive,  but at least it gives you something to talk shit about around the water cooler at work.

Get the fuck over yourself. Not everything is about the state of Israel.

Thanks.  A very good read.