What's new

Iran opposes Afghan-U.S. pact

farhan_9909

PROFESSIONAL
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
8,989
Reaction score
10
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Arab Emirates
Pact will not serve the government of Afghanistan, its people or the region

Iran has firmly opposed the proposed security pact between Afghanistan and the United States, highlighting that differences on crucial issues between Tehran and Washington will persist, despite the game-changing nuclear deal that was signed in Geneva last month.

On Tuesday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Marziyeh Afkham stressed that the proposed Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) between Kabul and Washington will not serve the government of Afghanistan, its people or the region. The BSA would anchor the legal regime that would apply to American troops in Afghanistan, who would be earmarked to stay beyond 2014, when most of the U.S. forces are to withdraw.

The security pact — which would allow the stationing of 8,000 to 12,000 troops — has stirred a heated debate inside Afghanistan and beyond.

Analysts point out that positioning of U.S. forces in their thousands will have an impact not only on the stability of Afghanistan, but of neighbouring countries as well, including China, Pakistan, India, Iran, the Central Asian Republics and Russia.

A day earlier, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Asia-Pacific and Commonwealth Affairs Ebrahim Rahimpour announced that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is slated to visit Iran shortly. “In this trip, [Mr.] Karzai will hold meetings with [Iranian] officials, particularly President Dr. [Hassan] Rouhani,” Iran’s English language Press TV quoted Mr. Rahimpour as saying.

He pointed out that Iran would convey to the visiting President that the agreement would “harm the long-term interests of the Afghan nation and government.” “Iran, as a friend of Afghanistan and Hamid Karzai himself, has stressed its concerns several times and will again raise these issues and concerns in the course of the next trip,” the Iranian diplomat said.

Mr. Rahimpour pointed out that the agreement would spiral extremism in Afghanistan. The Iranian position clashes head-on with the stance adopted by the West. On Tuesday, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned that if Mr. Karzai fails to sign the security deal with the U.S., NATO would also withdraw its training and advisory mission in Afghanistan after 2014.

“It is clear that if there is no signature on the legal agreement, there can be no deployment and the planned assistance will be put at risk,” Mr. Rasmussen told reporters on his arrival at Brussels for a two-day gathering of NATO Foreign Ministers.

President Karzai’s proposed visit to Iran is part of his accelerated effort to consult regional leaders on the proposed deal. The Afghan President also plans to visit New Delhi later this month.

Over the weekend, Mr. Karzai hosted Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan — a country that, for reasons of geography and history, will continue to exercise substantial influence over Afghanistan.

Xinhua is reporting that talks between the two leaders focused on the promotion of a dialogue between the Afghan government and Pakistan-based Taliban leaders. During a press conference with Mr. Karzai, Mr. Sharif stressed that his government would allow members of the Afghan Peace Council to meet senior Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who was freed by Pakistan, apparently at Mr. Karzai’s request. This would encourage a process of national reconciliation to make some headway.

Afghanistan’s Grand Council, Loya Jirga, has already approved the proposed BSA. However, Mr. Karzai’s government maintains that the pact can go through only after next year’s presidential elections.

Iran opposes Afghan-U.S. pact - The Hindu
 
how could iran be okey with a deal allowing extra-regional forces to be present and stir violence and be a threat to regional countries ?

a regime who attacked most of the regional countries and threaten more and more ?
 
Pakistan also opposes it, but our govt can't tell that to Afghanistan, some people will take wrong meaning out of it.
 
What's this.

I am seeing threads and posts saying "Iran and India will provide logistic supply route for NATO supplies".

As ever the hopes and dreams of our neighbours to the East dashed by a slap of reality.

I was talking to a few of them some weeks ago, they were adamant that now, Pakistan will become even more irrelevant, Iran-US relations will become ever so rosy and that indeed India will use Iran against Pakistan.
 
As ever the hopes and dreams of our neighbours to the East dashed by a slap of reality.

I was talking to a few of them some weeks ago, they were adamant that now, Pakistan will become even more irrelevant, Iran-US relations will become ever so rosy and that indeed India will use Iran against Pakistan.

And Navaz Shareef is encouraging Iran to do so by letting terrorists to roam freely in Balouchistan.
 
Iran-US relations will become ever so rosy and that indeed India will use Iran against Pakistan.

not gonna happen mate !

iranian diplomacy is not a floating boat that changes direction with every Breeze .

how can iran ignore its neighbor and work with its long time worst enemy AKA usa ?

and also , although very strong relations with india , each country will put its interests as basis for its relations with other countries .
 
Iran don't like Sunni Islamic government in its neighbors and same for Saudis, they cant tolerate shia Islamic State.
 
As ever the hopes and dreams of our neighbours to the East dashed by a slap of reality.

I was talking to a few of them some weeks ago, they were adamant that now, Pakistan will become even more irrelevant, Iran-US relations will become ever so rosy and that indeed India will use Iran against Pakistan.

Iran will never allow a NATO supply route from its soil. That's not gonna happen by any means.

And no country can 'use' Iran against any other country. Although people may disagree with some aspects of IR, but at least I'm sure we are not a banana republic that can be bought with money to act for interests of other countries.
 
Iran will never allow a NATO supply route from its soil. That's not gonna happen by any means.

And no country can 'use' Iran against any other country. Although people may disagree with some aspects of IR, but at least I'm sure we are not a banana republic that can be bought with money to act for interests of other countries.

That's one thing I've known to be true my whole life, and it's one thing I admire above all about Iran as a state, no traitors, you've got a spine for dealing with things, the exact opposite is true for Pakistan.
 
That's one thing I've known to be true my whole life, and it's one thing I admire above all about Iran as a state, no traitors, you've got a spine for dealing with things, the exact opposite is true for Pakistan.
Pakistan has all the means to be a very strong and prosperous nation, maybe except the will to do so, at some levels.

I hope another leader, just as great as great Muhammad Ali Jinah, takes the seat in Pakistan. I believe hundreds, if not thousands of people like him live in Pakistan, but they never get a chance.
 
Iran will never allow a NATO supply route from its soil. That's not gonna happen by any means.

And no country can 'use' Iran against any other country. Although people may disagree with some aspects of IR, but at least I'm sure we are not a banana republic that can be bought with money to act for interests of other countries.

Iran has been even bigger supply route as Pakistan, with a difference you get paid for it while we don't.
What do you think the supplying ruling drug lords is different than supplying US/NATO?
Keep your heads under the sand.

This is what i hate about Iran, there people are most ignorant and brain washed.

Check your border crossing on highway 36, leading from Torbat to Hertat, facilities fully built by US at Islam Qila (Afghan side) to accommodate large amount of supplies from Iran and you can see the mountains of containers.

Here is the exact location:
Dogharoun Border

Here you can see picture from Afghan side of this facility. A container always on the move and Iranian flag painted across the fence.

8530410.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think it is quit expected response from Iran.....No country would like to see a rival nation stationing a army troop near to its border and neighborhood.



Pact will not serve the government of Afghanistan, its people or the region

Iran has firmly opposed the proposed security pact between Afghanistan and the United States, highlighting that differences on crucial issues between Tehran and Washington will persist, despite the game-changing nuclear deal that was signed in Geneva last month.

On Tuesday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Marziyeh Afkham stressed that the proposed Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) between Kabul and Washington will not serve the government of Afghanistan, its people or the region. The BSA would anchor the legal regime that would apply to American troops in Afghanistan, who would be earmarked to stay beyond 2014, when most of the U.S. forces are to withdraw.

The security pact — which would allow the stationing of 8,000 to 12,000 troops — has stirred a heated debate inside Afghanistan and beyond.

Analysts point out that positioning of U.S. forces in their thousands will have an impact not only on the stability of Afghanistan, but of neighbouring countries as well, including China, Pakistan, India, Iran, the Central Asian Republics and Russia.

A day earlier, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Asia-Pacific and Commonwealth Affairs Ebrahim Rahimpour announced that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is slated to visit Iran shortly. “In this trip, [Mr.] Karzai will hold meetings with [Iranian] officials, particularly President Dr. [Hassan] Rouhani,” Iran’s English language Press TV quoted Mr. Rahimpour as saying.

He pointed out that Iran would convey to the visiting President that the agreement would “harm the long-term interests of the Afghan nation and government.” “Iran, as a friend of Afghanistan and Hamid Karzai himself, has stressed its concerns several times and will again raise these issues and concerns in the course of the next trip,” the Iranian diplomat said.

Mr. Rahimpour pointed out that the agreement would spiral extremism in Afghanistan. The Iranian position clashes head-on with the stance adopted by the West. On Tuesday, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned that if Mr. Karzai fails to sign the security deal with the U.S., NATO would also withdraw its training and advisory mission in Afghanistan after 2014.

“It is clear that if there is no signature on the legal agreement, there can be no deployment and the planned assistance will be put at risk,” Mr. Rasmussen told reporters on his arrival at Brussels for a two-day gathering of NATO Foreign Ministers.

President Karzai’s proposed visit to Iran is part of his accelerated effort to consult regional leaders on the proposed deal. The Afghan President also plans to visit New Delhi later this month.

Over the weekend, Mr. Karzai hosted Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan — a country that, for reasons of geography and history, will continue to exercise substantial influence over Afghanistan.

Xinhua is reporting that talks between the two leaders focused on the promotion of a dialogue between the Afghan government and Pakistan-based Taliban leaders. During a press conference with Mr. Karzai, Mr. Sharif stressed that his government would allow members of the Afghan Peace Council to meet senior Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who was freed by Pakistan, apparently at Mr. Karzai’s request. This would encourage a process of national reconciliation to make some headway.

Afghanistan’s Grand Council, Loya Jirga, has already approved the proposed BSA. However, Mr. Karzai’s government maintains that the pact can go through only after next year’s presidential elections.

Iran opposes Afghan-U.S. pact - The Hindu
 
And no country can 'use' Iran against any other country. Although people may disagree with some aspects of IR, but at least I'm sure we are not a banana republic that can be bought with money to act for interests of other countries.

But Sir don't you think Iran allowing indians to roam near Pakistani border is a cause of alarm for Pakistan...talking about Chahbahar Port. I' am pretty damn sure a country like Iran with millions of bright minds can build that port themselves instead of taking outsider's favor...and for funds, if a third world country like india can arrange funds for this projects then Iran a rich country should not have any problems.
 
But Sir don't you think Iran allowing indians to roam near Pakistani border is a cause of alarm for Pakistan...talking about Chahbahar Port. I' am pretty damn sure a country like Iran with millions of bright minds can build that port themselves instead of taking outsider's favor...and for funds, if a third world country like india can arrange funds for this projects then Iran a rich country should not have any problems.

All recent but sudden... Iranians developments and US drones falling in Iranian back yard, without valid reason, every thing is quite artificial, considering in reality they (Iran) can't run a dam hotel, build a road, without involving an Indian.
 
Back
Top Bottom