Iran Supporting & Arming the Taliban

[indushek]

I didn get ur post..

This news is also a part of the Wikileaks bro, have u not read about it In that along with this the role of ISI with the Afghan Taliban is written. Get the picture??

 

[KS]

This news is also a part of the Wikileaks bro, have u not read about it In that along with this the role of ISI with the Afghan Taliban is written. Get the picture??

Even then it sdoesnt add up ...

ISI has a history of collaborating with the Taliban - a thing that even Pak members cant/dont deny.Infact it was their most valuable asset.

So that news atleast has some semblance of creduility in it.

But Iran supporting Taliban - Ohh yeah..Gods must be crazy.!!!

 

[somebozo]

Iran funding and training talibans will be the day pig flies and cow dispenses honey. Taliban were trained by CIA in emerging gurellia tactics and since then they have spread the skillz wich killz!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Even then it sdoesnt add up ...

ISI has a history of collaborating with the Taliban - a thing that even Pak members cant/dont deny.Infact it was their most valuable asset.

So that news atleast has some semblance of creduility in it.

But Iran supporting Taliban - Ohh yeah..Gods must be crazy.!!!

The ISI and PA have also pointed out that they no longer support the Taliban, and the Taliban have also attacked the ISI/PA. Therefore I would argue it is just as incredulous to suggest that the ISI is supporting the Taliban, though they themselves admit that they have retained contacts with some factions for intelligence purposes and to attempt a negotiated end to the conflict. Also, the CIA supported Haqqani (their greatest threat sel admittedly now) and various other Mujahideen that are now Taliban. Does that mean that Pakistani accounts of the CIA supporting Pakistani Taliban figures to destabilize Pakistan should also be given credibility, given the CIA's past use of such insurgents in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

Secondly, the point is that if the reports alleging Iranian involvement are considered to be fabricated and unreliable, why should similar reports about Pakistan be considered reliable (in fact they are not, and that is covered in the main wikileaks thread)?

Also, bear in mind that the Iranians were also alleged to be supporting Sunni militias in Iraq against the US, and they support the Sunni Hamas in Palestine, so obviously there is a history of Iran supporting Sunni groups so long as those groups are engaging in activity that advances perceived Iranian objectives.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Iran offers reward for each Afghan official and soldier killed, according to coalition report | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[vedvyas]

The leak documents were dating back to 2004. If ISI/PA is not supporting taliban now, it will not affect what has happened in the past. I hope white house would invite intelligent people take strong action against ISI/PA officials who kill US soldiers.

 

[logic]

The lunatic Iranian regime can do this for a 100 reasons.

The world and specially Pakistan needs a stable and prosperous Afghanistan. Love it or hate it both the countries are like conjoined twins.

Hope there could be a regime change in Iran replaced by more sensible people.

 

[Nahraf]

The lunatic Iranian regime can do this for a 100 reasons.

Hope there could be a regime change in Iran replaced by more sensible people.

That could also be said about ISI and Pakistan Army. Their one track mind about Taliban has endangered Pakistan and gave it bad reputation around the world.

 

[zagahaga]

Ol these again don't they know that this ain't no Iraq properganda? Lol this is soo sad trying to use the same tactics just to invade them

 

[Pasban]

The lunatic Iranian regime can do this for a 100 reasons.

The world and specially Pakistan needs a stable and prosperous Afghanistan. Love it or hate it both the countries are like conjoined twins.

Hope there could be a regime change in Iran replaced by more sensible people.

Sir, the fundamental assumption behind your post is that Iran does not want to see Afghanistan progressing. This in untruthful. There a similar allegations put on against Pakistan concerning the case of Afghanistan and I am quiet certain you have come across them irrespective of your approval of them or not. I suggest you better research Iranian endeavors with regards to Afghanistan before fomenting an opinion.

As to the last bit, I rather see a pragmatic, hence reasonably sensible, foreign policy put out by Iran in the concerned region as per it's geo-strategic perspectives. Also, you fail to understand that, given the nature of Iran and it's people, a newer government would only insist on being more nationalistic or even ultra-nationalistic, in which case there would be little change concerning views on Afghanistan.

 

[Pasban]

Also, bear in mind that the Iranians were also alleged to be supporting Sunni militias in Iraq against the US, and they support the Sunni Hamas in Palestine, so obviously there is a history of Iran supporting Sunni groups so long as those groups are engaging in activity that advances perceived Iranian objectives.

The Iranian connections with the Taliban are only substantiated by the fact that Iranian perspectives negate continued US presence in Afghanistan. In which case, Iranian interests may outwardly seem to collide with the Taliban, which has generally become an umbrella term for the insurgency in the country as a whole regardless of the ideological compatibility with the puritan-Taliban themselves. It has to be noted however that Taliban presence and ability runs contrary to and damages Iranian interests more so.

More reasoned analysts have called the situation a "Mexican stand off," a stance with many fronts and all in opposition to one another-- i.e an equilibrium brought only by chaos. What has been alleged to be Iranian support to the Taliban, is probably more pragmatically Iranian support to Iran-tied or similar elements which negate US military presence but aren't keen on the Taliban themselves. Iran has previously supported Tajik and anti-Taliban groups in Afghanstan, most notably the Northern Alliance, which was primarily of the Sunn'ite denomination itself. The Taliban themselves are seen of as a threat by Iran, the primary area where US and Iranian interests seem to find some odd common footing, and understandably so there was an Iranian effort to strengthen the Northern Alliance and its gains further during the early US air campaign.

 

[Vassnti]

Sir, the fundamental assumption behind your post is that Iran does not want to see Afghanistan progressing. This in untruthful. .

As to the last bit, I rather see a pragmatic, hence reasonably sensible, foreign policy put out by Iran in the concerned region as per it's geo-strategic perspectives. .

This assumes a homogeneous policy across the board in Iran 100 men trained and a few $100,000 is in the scheme of things small change. Some thing a group like Quds could manage fairly easily and quietly.

 

[Pasban]

This assumes a homogeneous policy across the board in Iran 100 men trained and a few $100,000 is in the scheme of things small change. Some thing a group like Quds could manage fairly easily and quietly.

Could you clarify this further, please. I actually couldn't get you right.

 

[Vassnti]

Iran in general may wish the best for all its neighbours and its is logical that a stable prosporous Afghanistan is good for Iran, in that i agree with you.

That does not rule out some sections with in the guards that regard their priority to be short term harm to the great satan rather than long term benefits for Afghanistan.

One more training camp in the desert with 100 men and a few trainers would be no big deal. Transporting them to Afghanistan would be easy enough and the amounts of money concerned are small and easily conceled in other budgets.

As for Iran hates the taliban they would never help them, as one person already said the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the other thing to consider, not everyone in a black turban with an AK is a taliban.

Hope my reply is clearer.

 

[KS]

The ISI and PA have also pointed out that they no longer support the Taliban, and the Taliban have also attacked the ISI/PA. Therefore I would argue it is just as incredulous to suggest that the ISI is supporting the Taliban, though they themselves admit that they have retained contacts with some factions for intelligence purposes and to attempt a negotiated end to the conflict.

Do u expect all of us to believe wat the ISI says and take it to heart...and so if tomo RAW says that we r not doing anything in Afghanistan and Balochistan would u ppl drop all charges against India..?

And secondly for the part in red,is that not the bad taliban that is attacking the ISI/PA while the "good Taliban" that is in faraway Afghanistan and is being supported by Iran..? pardon my sarcasm.

And as u urself has admitted that they maintain still some contacts for some xyz purpose..wats the guarentee that it doesnt go beyond the xyz purpose..?

Also, the CIA supported Haqqani (their greatest threat sel admittedly now) and various other Mujahideen that are now Taliban. Does that mean that Pakistani accounts of the CIA supporting Pakistani Taliban figures to destabilize Pakistan should also be given credibility, given the CIA's past use of such insurgents in Afghanistan and elsewhere?Secondly, the point is that if the reports alleging Iranian involvement are considered to be fabricated and unreliable, why should similar reports about Pakistan be considered reliable (in fact they are not, and that is covered in the main wikileaks thread)?

Wrong comparison.
the CIA and in turn US' interest right now is a stable Pakistan so that they can participate in the Afghan war in their earnest.

So atleast now it is still incredulous for u to suggest that CIA supports TTP.

Also, bear in mind that the Iranians were also alleged to be supporting Sunni militias in Iraq against the US, and they support the Sunni Hamas in Palestine, so obviously there is a history of Iran supporting Sunni groups so long as those groups are engaging in activity that advances perceived Iranian objectives.

Pasban has already answered.

p.s.: Im not saying that all reports saying that ISI supports Taliban is true and all reports alleging that Iran supports Taliban are false.
But based on past history it is still logical to give the benefit of doubt to Iran in this case,..but not to the ISI because some (or rather many) parts in the ISI still see the Taliban as a asset that can be utilised in post-US afghanistan.