Iran invited to Munich security conference

[SOHEIL]

Chairman of the Munich Security Conference (MSC) Wolfgang Ischinger has called upon Iran to dispatch a high-profile representative to the 50th edition of the international event.

He said on Friday that an invitation has been delivered to the Islamic Republic, adding that he expects either Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif or even a higher ranking official to attend the conference.

The 50th Munich Security Conference is set to be held from January 31 to February 2, 2014.

The conference will be attended by high-ranking decision-makers in foreign and security policy, business sector activists as well as civil society representatives.

The 49th Munich Security Conference, which ran from February 1 to 3, 2013, featured talks regarding the ongoing crisis in Syria.

Syria has been gripped by a deadly crisis since 2011. Reports indicate that the Western powers and their regional allies - especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey - are supporting the militants operating inside the country.

According to the United Nations, more than 100,000 people have been killed and millions displaced in the violence.

PressTV - Iran invited to Munich security conference

 

[haman10]

in normal circumstances i doubt that iran would have accepted the invitation ......

but as its about syria we might consider going ...

 

[rmi5]

in normal circumstances i doubt that iran would have accepted the invitation ......

but as its about syria we might consider going ...

Like the other conferences about Syria that they don't even invite mullahs to seat there?

 

[haman10]

@Serpentine
What is it called? isn't it trolling?

the post bellow is

Like the other conferences about Syria that they don't even invite mullahs to seat there?

 

[Abii]

in normal circumstances i doubt that iran would have accepted the invitation ......

but as its about syria we might consider going ...

Just like the one in Geneva where more than 20 countries participated? Oh wait, I forgot, you weren't invited

lol

 

[haman10]

Just like the one in Geneva where more than 20 countries participated? Oh wait, I forgot, you weren't invited

well we dont participate in a conference where the smelly stephan harper spews all around it

now bug off ....

 

[Abii]

well we dont participate in a conference where the smelly stephan harper spews all around it

now bug off ....

It seems like you're confused. Nobody gave two shits about your mullahs and nobody invited you in the first place. You can't decline when you weren't even invited! Nobody gives a shit about the oil rich North Korea, so don't get ahead of yourself.

 

[ResurgentIran]

Any sensible person knows that Geneva conference is meaningless without Iran. Any settlement there will not be realized or implemented, unless it has Iranian buy-in.

 

[Abii]

Any sensible person knows that Geneva conference is meaningless without Iran. Any settlement there will not be realized or implemented, unless it has Iranian buy-in.

Do explain your fantastical theory.

We're all ears.

 

[ResurgentIran]

Do explain your fantastical theory.

We're all ears.

Its easy really. There is a negotiation and there are two parties . Assad government and opposition. KSA, Turkey, Qatar etc backs the opposition, hence their participation is natural.
Iran is the principal backer and strategic ally of the Syrian government, so any conference that excludes Iran and does not consider Iranian interests will be imbalanced from the get go and most probably a failure. So civil war will ravage on and the conclusion of Geneva II will not be realised on the ground (unless it has Iranian and Syrian government buy-in)
The only thing that is fantastical is your lack of understanding of this basic point.

 

[rmi5]

Its easy really. There is a negotiation and there are two parties . Assad government and opposition. KSA, Turkey, Qatar etc backs the opposition, hence their participation is natural.
Iran is the principal backer and strategic ally of the Syrian government, so any conference that excludes Iran and does not consider Iranian interests will be imbalanced from the get go and most probably a failure. So civil war will ravage on and the conclusion of Geneva II will not be realised on the ground (unless it has Iranian and Syrian government buy-in)
The only thing that is fantastical is your lack of understanding of this basic point.

Obviously, participation of mullahs is not important for KSA, Turkey, Qatar, opposition, ...
But, as far as Assad is concerned, Russia is participating and it seems that he is perfectly fine with or without the participation of mullahs. So, I don't see any problem. mullahs are only " Gaav e Shirdeh" for Assad, nothing more. based on the "Basirat" of IR in choosing super faithful allies(!!!) like Hamas, I don't see any different fate for mullahs-Assad relations even if he succeeds in the civil war.

 

[haman10]

^^ youre only mad because of operation mersad decades ago

aint that right @mohsen

iran was invited to munich , and may or may not participate in geneva talks on syria .

thats not the matter here .... the matter is IF iran is not invited to geneva talks by USA then the talks is nothing but a pre-failed one-sided BS ...... it will fail even before it starts ..

now u go cry for your masters wherever they are .... i dont care whether its shahiz or saudiz or MKO . but go cry some where else

 

[ResurgentIran]

Obviously, participation of mullahs is not important for KSA, Turkey, Qatar, opposition, ...
But, as far as Assad is concerned, Russia is participating and it seems that he is perfectly fine with or without the participation of mullahs. So, I don't see any problem. mullahs are only " Gaav e Shirdeh" for Assad, nothing more. based on the "Basirat" of IR in choosing super faithful allies(!!!) like Hamas, I don't see any different fate for mullahs-Assad relations even if he succeeds in the civil war.

In such a dynamic Iran would be de facto present in the talks, with Russia representing Iranian interests. Which would have to give Russia much more weight in the negotiations. If it does not, it renders conference meaningless.
In any case, my point still stands.

 

[mohsen]

^^ youre only mad because of operation mersad decades ago

aint that right @mohsen

iran was invited to munich , and may or may not participate in geneva talks on syria .

thats not the matter here .... the matter is IF iran is not invited to geneva talks by USA then the talks is nothing but a pre-failed one-sided BS ...... it will fail even before it starts ..

now u go cry for your masters wherever they are .... i dont care whether its shahiz or saudiz or MKO . but go cry some where else

I was thinking about 33day war, rather than Mersad

 

[rmi5]

In such a dynamic Iran would be de facto present in the talks, with Russia representing Iranian interests. Which would have to give Russia much more weight in the negotiations. If it does not, it renders conference meaningless.
In any case, my point still stands.

BTW, "Maaleh Keshi" is always possible in every case, but we want to have a meaningful discussion.
Look, We are talking about the real facts, for the second run of the conferences, opposition disagreed with the participation of mullahs, and they kicked them out of conference, and no one seriously objected including the Assad himself. Doesn't it have any meaning for you?
How your points stands when Assad agrees to participate in the conference no matter if mullahs participate the conference or not?!!!