What's new

Balance of power tips toward Iran

Aepsilons

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
May 29, 2014
Messages
24,960
Reaction score
118
Country
Japan
Location
United States
Difficult though it may be to believe, Iran presents more important challenges than whether a nuclear deal negotiated with the regime in the teeth of congressional opposition would be legally binding. Nuclear weapons are scary, and they do matter, but in the long run, geopolitical reality matters more. That’s why this report, which arrived over the weekend from the Dubai-based Orient Advisory Group, should be disturbing:
Ali Younusi, advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, said in a seminar titled “The Iranian Identity” held in Tehran on March 8th, that his country is in Iraq to stay. “Iran is an empire once again at last, and its capital is Baghdad. It is the center of our civilization, culture and identity as it always was along the course of history.”

This is rather heady stuff. But might it be mere rhetoric, designed for domestic political consumption? There is reason to think not. Iraq has served for decades as a bulwark against Iran’s territorial ambitions, but that status was exploded by a pair of U.S. decisions: first, President George W. Bush’s invasion; and, second, President Barack Obama’s withdrawal of U.S. forces.

This is why it matters that the United States is essentially sidelined in the campaign to drive Islamic State fighters from Tikrit. Not only is the U.S. not participating in the battle, but also, according to the always excellent reporting of the Daily Beast’s Nancy Youssef, the Obama administration didn’t even know that the attack by 30,000 government troops and Shiite militiamen was imminent.

Reuters reports that the battle for Tikrit has become a stalemate. Al Jazeera quotes an Iraqi commander as complaining that the U.S.-led coalition is providing too little air support. But nobody seriously imagines that Islamic State can hold on in Tikrit. It’s not unusual for combat engagements to proceed in fits and starts, and the fact that the offensive has slowed doesn’t mean that the defenders aren’t in retreat.

This should be good news. The trouble is that the largest militia group participating in the attack is the Popular Mobilization Committee, some elements of which have been accused of war crimes. This matters because, if and when Tikrit falls, there is a significant risk that the Shiites will take a bloody revenge on the Sunnis who remain — and the U.S. has admitted there is little it can do if that happens.

That’s the cost of not being involved.

Now let’s add in last month’s comments from Gen. Qassem Suleimani, leader of the Quds Force, currently aiding — some would say directing — the ground campaign in Tikrit: “Today we see signs of the Islamic revolution being exported throughout the region, from Bahrain to Iraq and from Syria to Yemen and North Africa.”

Headier stuff still. Tehran makes no secret of its ambitions, and seems to face no significant opposition in the drive to achieve them. Certainly the U.S., formerly the dominant regional power, seems to be standing aside as Iran advances.

An important and accurate criticism of U.S. President George W. Bush’s Iraq policy was that too little thought had been given to the long-term consequences of U.S. military action. His administration had planned inadequately for life after Iraqi leader Saddam Hussen. The identical criticism can be leveled against the Obama administration. Officials seemed to have no realistic understanding of what might happen once the U.S. withdrew. When it became clear that Iraq was becoming a disaster, the administration had no clear plan on what to do about it — or even whether it mattered.

It’s not as though only vulgar partisans saw this coming. Plenty of professionals tried to sound the warning. Among them was George Friedman, the founder of Stratfor, who made this very point in his perspicacious 2011 book “The Next Decade: Empire and Republic in a Changing World”:

The balance of power between Iran and Iraq remained intact until 2003, when the U.S. invasion destroyed both Iraq’s government and army. Since then the primary force that has kept the Iranians in check has been the U.S. But the U.S. has announced that it intends to withdraw its forces from Iraq, which, given the state of the Iraqi government and military, will leave Iran the dominant power in the Persian Gulf.

How dominant? Sufficiently dominant, Friedman argued, that negotiations over nuclear weapons would be beside the point:

With Iraq essentially neutralized, its 30 million people fighting each other rather than counterbalancing anyone, Iran is for the first time in centuries free from significant external threat from its neighbors. … With Iraq in shambles, the nations of the Arabian Peninsula could not resist Iran even if they acted in concert. Bear in mind that nuclear weapons are not relevant to this reality. Iran would still be the dominant Persian Gulf power even if its nuclear weapons were destroyed.

It seems likely that the Obama administration has already reconciled itself to this reality. The White House quite likely believes that the U.S. is unable to afford the cost of a continued large-scale deployment of forces in the region. Friedman saw this coming too:

In the next decade, the most desirable option with Iran is going to be delivered through a move that now seems inconceivable. It is the option chosen by U.S. Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon when they faced seemingly impossible strategic situations: the creation of alliances with countries that had previously been regarded as strategic and moral threats.

Conditions on the ground put the U.S. in a similar position today vis-a-vis Iran. These countries despise each other. Neither can easily destroy the other, and, truth be told, they have some interests in common. In simple terms, the American president, in order to achieve his strategic goals, must seek accommodation with Iran.

In short words, Friedman argued that the long-term interest of the U.S. would be best served by detente with Iran. The U.S., he contended, should accept Iran’s status as the dominant regional power, and negotiate with Tehran as it would with any other hostile but untouchable nation.

Perhaps this is what the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program are really about. The Obama administration has decided to yield to what it sees as inevitable: Iran’s emerging status as the dominant power in the Middle East. If that’s what’s going on, the president of the U.S. should say so. Both his own citizens and the people of that troubled region deserve the truth.

Stephen L. Carter, a Bloomberg View columnist, teaches law at Yale University.



Balance of power tips toward Iran | The Japan Times
 
Iranian influence in the region will continue to grow and grow. There is nothing anybody can do about that. Iran's influence in the region is already unparalleled.
The Americans are realising that fact and they have started to accept it. Not that whether they accept or not matters.

Americans will have to learn to deal directly with Iran instead of their futile provocative attitude thus far.
 
Last edited:
Damascus, Sana'a, Baghdad. Iran's influence has grown, but the balance of power is still not tipped towards its.
 
s for the Turks, lol, I honestly do not see any reason why they should be seen as even a regional player never-mind a regional power.
Is someone can give me a reason why Turks are anything to even consider in the region that I'll be in your debt.
Your obsession caused by the jealousy of the Turkey describes itself, no further more explanatory is needed. :lol:
 
Iran's strategic importance lies in the fact that she is the 2nd largest source of natural gas in the world, after Russia. She has over 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas , thus representing 15% of the world's supply. America, as an energy consumer, has to change policy. In fact, this is seen in Netenyahu's recent tirade against Obama's 'warming' towards Iran.

Interesting paradigm shift.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/per...ran-deal-could-have-broader-implications.html

A ‘foul spectacle,’ a ‘clown show’: How Iran reacted to Netanyahu’s speech - The Washington Post

Iranian influence in the region will continue to grow and grow. There is nothing anybody can do about that. Iran's influence in the region is already unparalleled.
The Americans are realising that fact and they have started to accept it. Not that whether they accept or not matters.

Americans will have to learn to deal directly with Iran instead of their futile provocative attitude thus far.

The facts is that Iran is the only real power in the region. All these other countries like saudis and Turkey have no influence. The saudis are just a puppet which attempt to gain influence by pumping oil money into terrorists groups like ISIS and al Nusra, in the end of course these same groups end up threatening saudis themselves and net effect is more influence for Iran as you can see in Iraq and Syria. The Saudis are simply too incompetent to be seen as a regional power, it is because of this lack of capability that they have been moaning so much about the Houthi take over of Yemen.

As for the Turks, lol, I honestly do not see any reason why they should be seen as even a regional player never-mind a regional power.
If someone can give me a reason why Turks are anything to even consider in the region that I'll be in your debt.

@Daneshmand @SOHEIL @ResurgentIran @yavar @kollang @haman10 @Kiarash @Others

Your thoughts would be appreciated.


This post is filled with too much animosity , buddy. Let's keep it civil without having to put down certain nations.
 
Damascus, Sana'a, Baghdad. Iran's influence has grown
Actuaally in Damascus and Baghdad it's influence got weaken....these two capitals were already Iran's allies because of their sect....but it's two ally got weaken....especially Syria, Iran is spending so much (both Money and Manpower) to keep Assad alive.
 
Actuaally in Damascus and Baghdad it's influence got weaken....these two capitals were already Iran's allies because of their sect....but it's two ally got weaken....especially Syria, Iran is spending so much (both Money and Manpower) to keep Assad alive.
Iran basically controls Damascus, where as before they merely had influence, same thing with Baghdad. Sana'a is completely controlled by Iran, as their proxy is in power there.
 
Actuaally in Damascus and Baghdad it's influence got weaken....these two capitals were already Iran's allies because of their sect....but it's two ally got weaken....especially Syria, Iran is spending so much (both Money and Manpower) to keep Assad alive.


:lol::rofl::rofl:

This post shows what a clueless kid you are. Iran's influence in Baghdad has reduced?

Iran's strategic importance lies in the fact that she is the 2nd largest source of natural gas in the world, after Russia. She



This post is filled with too much animosity , buddy. Let's keep it civil without having to put down certain nations.

Bro, I am just being honest. If you disagree with what I have stated please state why.
Can you show me in what way I am wrong? I am interested in a discussion on this matter.

I see little reason why these other regional countries have any considerable influence or power to be considered as regional powers.
 
Turkey and Saudi Arabia miscalculated Iran as does some Pakistanis. The Saudi Arabia also has realized power of Iran and they cooperated with illegal Zionist entity against Iran and Hamas.While the misguided Pakistan intelligence ISI is still stuck in 1990s in supporting barbaric Talibans in Afghanistan while ignoring Saudi funded terrorism in Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Instead of actually addressing the points you reply with a useless post of no value.
There was no points in your post, only mullah chanting.
There is more reasons to be even jealous of the Saudis than to be Jealous of your state kid.
Because of your drones which can fly thousands of miles in supersonic speed stealth drones, while evading incoming missiles, shoots enemy aircrafts ???
https://defence.pk/threads/iran-unveils-drones-with-‘smart-missiles’.359278/
I would be jealous of Iran, if i had been drunk :lol:

The truth hurts. but reality is Turkey is laughably un-influential in the region. Now either attempt to debunk this fact or stay away ;)
Do i look impressed with the Mullah version of truth or facts ???

Who cares about a 3rd world terrorist country under the UN sanctions...... let me think...... nobody ?
 
Turkey and Saudi Arabia miscalculated Iran as does some Pakistanis. The Saudi Arabia also has realized power of Iran and they cooperated with illegal Zionist entity against Iran and Hamas.While the misguided Pakistan intelligence ISI is still stuck in 1980s in supporting barbaric Talibans in Afghanistan while ignoring Saudi funded terrorism in Pakistan.

There is nothing they can do about Iran buddy. They are too incompetent. Remember how they backed the likes of ISIS in order to weaken Iranian influence? It's had the exact opposite effect. Iranians are master chess players whereas these other lot are playing a mindless game.

The Americans are started to realise the truth, and that is if they want to get anything done it the region, they have to work with Iran. Their Saudi, Turkish, Qatari puppets have yielded nothing of value for them.
 
here is nothing they can do about Iran buddy. They are too incompetent. Remember how they backed the likes of ISIS in order to weaken Iranian influence? It's had the exact opposite effect. Iranians are master chess players whereas these other lot are playing a mindless game.

The Americans are started to realise the truth, and that is if they want to get anything done it the region, they have to work with Iran. Their Saudi, Turkish, Qatari puppets have yielded nothing of value for them.
You can speak all day long....we came to this region 1000 years ago and since 1000s years, your influence has been cut-off and it will stay a in the exact same way for another 1000 years....

Everybody knows that your influence is limited with the Shia regions which is %10 of the entire Muslim region....so continue to repeating same words over and over Mullah boy. Nobody cares for your 3rd world terrorist country.

nce again, another useless post which does not address any of the points.
This hiding away from answering the question answers it really. It shows you really don't have anything to even attempt to debunk any of the said points raised to you.
You have no question mullah boy, just your mumbling... :)

You come from a country that is a transit route for ISIS, and he calls Iran a terrorist state. The most your country is in the region is a transit route for terrorists. That must feel great. :rofl:
Mullah boy trying to lift face....wake up boy. :lol:

Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
While the misguided Pakistan intelligence ISI is still stuck in 1980s in supporting barbaric Talibans in Afghanistan while ignoring Saudi funded terrorism in Pakistan.

There was no such thing as the Taliban in the 1980's, dimwit.

You come from a country that is a transit route for ISIS, and he calls Iran a terrorist state. The most your country is in the region is a transit route for terrorists. That must feel great. :rofl:

Keep deluding yourself and using stupid smileys to prove your "point". While Turkey was innovating, Iran was being taken over by mullahs who were waging war against Der Juden and "The Great Satan". During the late '70s and '80s, it was Iranian-supported terrorism which had shaken the world to its core.
 
:rofl::lol::rofl:

Do you have any idea how pathetic you're making yourself look?
Even your Americans masters have started to admit to great Iranian influence in the region.
Erdogon has done a great job at keeping you lot brain dead man.

Like i said, who cares about your words ??? Nobody, including me... :) All you can do with your brain dead mullah jerk-off cyle is to repeat your own words again and again. :lol:
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom