Iran invited to Munich security conference

[ResurgentIran]

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?!!!

Which brings me back to my earlier point that civil war will just ravage on. Maybe Assad is not opposing right now, because he could have interest in not seeing these negotiations succeed (which they will not if Iranian interests are not included), because the tide of the war is reversing and Assad is gaining more ground.
Again, my point still stands. lol

 

[rmi5]

Which brings me back to my earlier point that civil war will just ravage on. Maybe Assad is not opposing right now, because he could have interest in not seeing these negotiations succeed (which they will not if Iranian interests are not included), because the tide of the war is reversing and Assad is gaining more ground.
Again, my point still stands. lol

As I told you before, "Maleh Keshi" is always possible. You have no proof for your statement, while I mentioned evidences for you.
They reached a preliminary agreement in the first conference which it shows that Assad is not joking about participating in the conference. This preliminary agreement about the concept of having a transition government, ... is the basis of the second conference as well. Assad is only seeking his own interests, and he is not an idiot. So, after all, it shows that mullahs are only "Gaav e Shirdeh". Although you can always do "Maaleh Keshi" if you want , Dear @ResurgentIran

 

[Abii]

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.

"principal backer and strategic ally of the Syrian government"

Aha, so b/c Iran gives aid, weapons and support to Syria, it suddenly means that Syria cannot make decisions on its own? Buddy, your argument is invalid at best. It makes no sense.

The instigators of this conflict can easily cut a deal with Assad. What will you do at that point? Cut aid? Go ahead, at that point Assad won't need aid any longer.

Iran doesn't have soldiers in Syria. Your theory is based on the assumption that Assad/Syria and Iran are one. Where you got that ridiculous notion from I have no idea. The success of the negotiations are dependent on whether or not the instigators and Assad/Syria can come to an agreement.

 

[rmi5]

"principal backer and strategic ally of the Syrian government"

Aha, so b/c Iran gives aid, weapons and support to Syria, it suddenly means that Syria cannot make decisions on its own? Buddy, your argument is invalid at best. It makes no sense.

The instigators of this conflict can easily cut a deal with Assad. What will you do at that point? Cut aid? Go ahead, at that point Assad won't need aid any longer.

Iran doesn't have soldiers in Syria. Your theory is based on the assumption that Assad/Syria and Iran are one. Where you got that ridiculous notion from I have no idea. The success of the negotiations are dependent on whether or not the instigators and Assad/Syria can come to an agreement.

Exactly to the point and right.

 

[ResurgentIran]

"principal backer and strategic ally of the Syrian government"

Aha, so b/c Iran gives aid, weapons and support to Syria, it suddenly means that Syria cannot make decisions on its own? Buddy, your argument is invalid at best. It makes no sense.

The instigators of this conflict can easily cut a deal with Assad. What will you do at that point? Cut aid? Go ahead, at that point Assad won't need aid any longer.

Iran doesn't have soldiers in Syria. Your theory is based on the assumption that Assad/Syria and Iran are one. Where you got that ridiculous notion from I have no idea. The success of the negotiations are dependent on whether or not the instigators and Assad/Syria can come to an agreement.

SA, Qatar, UAE etc have offered large amount of money in the past to break its alliance with Iran. Once that failed, West outsourced the task to Erdogan so he could establish close personal ties with Assad family (which he did), in order to steer Syria away from its close relations with Iran.
After that failed as well, thats when the Jihadis came pouring in.

Its not all about money. A country can have stratetic and security interests, which no amount of money will overcome. You just dont understand geopolitics.

Off course my argument makes sense. But we will have to agree to disagree. We'll see in coming months or years, which one of us is more in the right.

 

[Abii]

SA, Qatar, UAE etc have offered large amount of money in the past to break its alliance with Iran. Once that failed, West outsourced the task to Erdogan so he could establish close personal ties with Assad family (which he did), in order to steer Syria away from its close relations with Iran.
After that failed as well, thats when the Jihadis came pouring in.

Its not all about money. A country can have stratetic and security interests, which no amount of money will overcome. You just dont understand geopolitics.

Off course my argument makes sense. But we will have to agree to disagree. We'll see in coming months or years, which one of us is more in the right.

Why did you quote my previous post if you were going to leave a collection of random sentences as a response?

Syria and the instigators might or might not cut a deal. Iran might or might not continue as an ally of Syria/Assad. There are many possibilities. You've argued that Syria is one with Iran based on the assumption that limited aid buys servitude, when that's simply a nonsensical theory. Syria will engage in talks, with or without Iran. Syria might or might not cut a deal. Syria might break off its alliance with Iran or it might stay a friend.

There are countless possibilities. You're arguing that without Iran, most of these possibilities cannot come to fruition. You have yet to explain why you think this is the case.

 

[ResurgentIran]

Why did you quote my previous post if you were going to leave a collection of random sentences as a response?

Syria and the instigators might or might not cut a deal. Iran might or might not continue as an ally of Syria/Assad. There are many possibilities. You've argued that Syria is one with Iran based on the assumption that limited aid buys servitude, when that's simply a nonsensical theory. Syria will engage in talks, with or without Iran. Syria might or might not cut a deal. Syria might break off its alliance with Iran or it might stay a friend.

There are countless possibilities. You're arguing that without Iran, most of these possibilities cannot come to fruition. You have yet to explain why you think this is the case.

No its a misinterpretation of what I have said. Iran is the principal backer of Assad regime, not because of just money or other aid. This was your assumption and interpretation, but does not reflect what I meant.
Iran-Syria alliance was born out of common strategic and security interests.
At first it was to contain Baathist Iraq and prevent Israeli incursion into Lebanon, and also limit American influence in the region. Thats why the alliance have endured, not because of money.
It may change in the future, depending on the geostrategic map of the region.

Your last paragraph, I have already explained why a settlement that does not take into account Iranian interests will not be realistically implemented on the ground. But thats not just my personal opinion. Its also the opinion of Russia, China, AL envoy to the UN and increasingly more countries.
Like I said, we will see over the coming months or years.

 

[Abii]

No its a misinterpretation of what I have said. Iran is the principal backer of Assad regime, not because of just money or other aid. This was your assumption and interpretation, but does not reflect what I meant.
Iran-Syria alliance was born out of common strategic and security interests.
At first it was to contain Baathist Iraq and prevent Israeli incursion into Lebanon, and also limit American influence in the region. Thats why the alliance have endured, not because of money.
It may change in the future, depending on the geostrategic map of the region.

Your last paragraph, I have already explained why a settlement that does not take into account Iranian interests will not be realistically implemented on the ground. But thats not just my personal opinion. Its also the opinion of Russia, China, AL envoy to the UN and increasingly more countries.
Like I said, we will see over the coming months or years.

Nothing you have said so far makes any sense. No matter how strong the alliance is, Assad/Syria can sit down and negotiate a deal without Iran being present, which is exactly what's happening. You say it can't come to fruition b/c such a deal won't "account Iranian interests." woopdedoo! So what? Can Iran do anything about it? No it cannot. Thus, your argument is invalid.

Iranian interests, as you call them btw, are akhoond interests. There's nothing in it for Iran as a nation.

 

[ResurgentIran]

Nothing you have said so far makes any sense. No matter how strong the alliance is, Assad/Syria can sit down and negotiate a deal without Iran being present, which is exactly what's happening. You say it can't come to fruition b/c such a deal won't "account Iranian interests." woopdedoo! So what? Can Iran do anything about it? No it cannot. Thus, your argument is invalid.

Iranian interests, as you call them btw, are akhoond interests. There's nothing in it for Iran as a nation.

All I have said makes sense, you just choose not to accept it, which is your prerogative.
Also its not akhoond interests at all. But in the interests of the nation state of Iran. If Shah was here today, he would have done the same.

 

[Abii]

All I have said makes sense, you just choose not to accept it, which is your prerogative.
Also its not akhoond interests at all. But in the interests of the nation state of Iran. If Shah was here today, he would have done the same.

**** the shah, **** these tazi akhoonds.
Let's not discuss its benefits, b/c that's besides the point.

Back to the point:

Your argument: without akhoonds being at the negotiation table, Syria and the rest of the relevant parties cannot form a deal and if they do, the deal will fall apart b/c it doesn't account for Iranian interests.

My argument: no matter how strong the relationship b/in Iran and Syria is, Syria can and does negotiate as an independent actor and the conclusion of these talks, if successful, will not necessary have to account for akhoond interests. What these akhoonds think matters little and there's nothing they can do about it.

You have proposed a theory, but you have failed to state why and how akhoonds can destroy any deals reached by Syria and the instigators. You have failed to explain why any deal that excludes "Iranian interests" would fall apart.

And of course many different things can happen, but that's not what we're arguing about here.

 

[ResurgentIran]

**** the shah, **** these tazi akhoonds.
Let's not discuss its benefits, b/c that's besides the point.

Back to the point:

Your argument: without akhoonds being at the negotiation table, Syria and the rest of the relevant parties cannot form a deal and if they do, the deal will fall apart b/c it doesn't account for Iranian interests.

My argument: no matter how strong the relationship b/in Iran and Syria is, Syria can and does negotiate as an independent actor and the conclusion of these talks, if successful, will not necessary have to account for akhoond interests. What these akhoonds think matters little and there's nothing they can do about it.

You have proposed a theory, but you have failed to state why and how akhoonds can destroy any deals reached by Syria and the instigators. You have failed to explain why any deal that excludes "Iranian interests" would fall apart.

And of course many different things can happen, but that's not what we're arguing about here.

I only mentioned Shah, because when you said "akhoond" you implied that Irans interests are ideological, when nothing could be further from the truth. But by all means you can use that terminology if you want, I just wont subscribe to it.
Syria is independent actor, but every actor has partners and allies like Russia, Iran etc. Iran is a stakeholder in Syria, just like the backers of the opposition are stake-holders. Whats so hard to understand?
I have not failed to explain, its just you who have not understood the facts I have put on the table. I cant piggyback you into understand. Its would be like explaining why 1+1 is 2. lol

 

[rmi5]

I only mentioned Shah, because when you said "akhoond" you implied that Irans interests are ideological, when nothing could be further from the truth. But by all means you can use that terminology if you want, I just wont subscribe to it.
Syria is independent actor, but every actor has partners and allies like Russia, Iran etc. Iran is a stakeholder in Syria, just like the backers of the opposition are stake-holders. Whats so hard to understand?

It is very easy, since you guys were saying the same thing about Hamas and palestinians in general, but hamas showed that they would decide on their own whenever they want by opposing your position about syria, and a Palestinian blowed himself in front of your embassy in Lebanon a short time ago.
Doesn't it mean anything to you?!!!

I have not failed to explain, its just you who have not understood the facts I have put on the table. I cant piggyback you into understand. Its would be like explaining why 1+1 is 2. lol

 

[ResurgentIran]

Lets remain respectful please.

 

[rmi5]

Lets remain respectful please.

OK, fair enough, but what about the first part of my comment?

 

[ResurgentIran]

OK, fair enough, but what about the first part of my comment?

Our relations with Hamas remains very cordial and excellent.