US Senate warns Obama on Rouhani in letter signed by 76 lawmakers

[Serpentine]

Hah! This might be so painful to take, as painful as what the Egyptians and Syrians claim after Yom Kippur, nice try boy, come again

Why painful?You have a bad habit of hiding embarassment behind smilies. But they won't always help.
Iran-Iraq war ended in stalemate militarily and as a strategic win for Iran, because Saddam didn't achieve crap, let alone one of his many objectives including capture of Iran's territories, 'liberating' three islands, redifining ownership of Arvand rud (Shat al Arab), toppling Iran's new revolutionary government. Why do you think Saddam offered a truce just 2 years after the war? Perhaps he was too powerful to fight a war like that?
Iran achieved all objectives: almost completely halting Iraqi oil exports during the war, retaking the captured territories, kicking out Iraqi troops and preventing Saddam from achieving one single of his goals. The only objective Iran didn't accomplish was toppling Saddam's regime which U.S did after some years.

 

[Doritos11]

LoL. Without money your country couldn't have achieved what it DID have.

Anyway,

I will leave it here, I'm going to chill out during the night of Eid.

It was not an achievement, but since you insist I will thank the oilfields.

Happy eid

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

What embarassments are you talking about ? Your sworn enemy " the Zionists " Jews never fired a single bullet at my homeplace, you on the other hand have been suffering for being too Arab more than the Arab themselves

Why painful?You have a bad habit of hiding embarassment behind smilies. But they won't always help.
Iran-Iraq war ended in stalemate militarily and as a strategic win for Iran, because Saddam didn't achieve crap, let alone one of his many objectives including capture of Iran's territories, 'liberating' three islands, redifining ownership of Arvand rud (Shat al Arab), toppling Iran's new revolutionary government. Why do you think Saddam offered a truce just 2 years after the war? Perhaps he was too powerful to fight a war like that?

Hah! Both states came to an agreement to cease fire, nice try.

Chao

It was not an achievement, but since you insist I will thank the oilfields.

No problem, your very welcome happy Eid again.

 

[Takaavar]

Winner and loser are defined by the goal of sides and the coressponding results, no matter what a beduin belives

Saddam expected to capture Tehran in thirty days, he couldn't capture one centimeter after eight years.
Iran wanted to kick Saddam's a$s and recapture its soil, and did so.
Who was successful to reah his goal here?

 

[Doritos11]

Capturing Tehran was not a goal, main goals were eliminating Iran as a gulf power which would make Iraq the main gulf power, capture Khuzestan and some islands in in control of Iran claimed by the UAE.

 

[Serpentine]

Capturing Tehran was not a goal, main goals were eliminating Iran as a gulf power which would make Iraq the main gulf power, capture Khuzestan and some islands in in control of Iran claimed by the UAE.

None achieved.
Iran-Iraq war can be called one of the dumbest wars in history.

 

[kalu_miah]

What about Saudi Arabia meddling in Pakistan and controlling the politics there?

The Saudis are long accustomed to having a significant role in Pakistan's affairs. A 2007 cable recounts a boast of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Adel al-Jubeir, who is reportedly a close confidant of King Abdullah: "We in Saudi Arabia are not observers in Pakistan, we are participants."

Read more: WikiLeaks Reveals Saudi Arabia's Role in Pakistani Affairs - TIME


What about Saudi Arabia interfering in Afghanistan ( a Persian country) in the 1980's?

The Taliban is an Islamic fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan. It spread into Afghanistan and formed a government, ruling as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from September 1996 until December 2001, with Kandahar as the capital. However, it gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Taliban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good questions. First of all you need to understand my complete world view and thought process, before making shallow judgement like I am ideological. I have given some links in previous posts, you can go through them to get a glimpse.

What I believe is good for people in these regions are regional integration of greater GCC region in GCC+ (and Arab League in the future) and greater Eurasia region in Eurasia+. Any actions by a state that is hampering these integration processes, I would consider those actions as negative.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/180771-geopolitics-gcc-region.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/180767-geopolitics-eurasia-region.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/164048-kalu_miahs-new-world-order-road-map-future.html

For centuries under Ottoman, Iraq was an integral part of the Arab world and Sunni's were dominant there. Kingdom of Iraq and then Bath party rule was a continuation of that. If Iraq was integrated with greater GCC and eventually in an Arab League, which is majority Sunni, then Shia majority Iraqi's would not get the chance to get the upper hand.

But before this integration could happen, the theocracy came to power in Iran in 1979 and then decided to take advantage of the fault line in Iraqi demographics of Shia majority. Saddam tried to preempt it, the result is Iraq-Iran war and then he was foolish enough to threaten the Gulf Monarchs, invading Kuwait, inviting the US led first Gulf war. He was still considered a threat by Neocons and they took advantage of the 9/11 incident and launched 2nd Gulf war to remove him and thus handing one of the greatest geopolitical victory to Iran in a silver platter. Now Iraq is ruled by the Shia majority, as it should be in any democracy.

What is the long term result of this fiasco? These actions triggered by the theocracy of Iran and then completed by USA invasion of Iraq in 2003, brings Shia majority to power in Iraq. But Iraq happens to be a country that is 75% Arab (Shia and Sunni):
Demographics of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iraqi Arabs 75%, Kurds 17%, Turkmen 3%, Assyrians 2%, Persians 2%,
Other 1% [3] (Armenians , Chechens, Circassians, Egyptians, Palestinians, Shabaks).

So it is natural that they will stay with Arab League and perhaps will become a part of it in the future. But with these events since 1979, the future of Iraq is now in limbo. I believe one of two things will happen because of the destabilization since 1979:

1. Iraq will partition in 3 parts, the Shia part will become a satellite state of Iran, the Kurdish part will become a satellite state of Turkey and the Sunni part will become a satellite state of GCC or greater GCC which in part is a smaller part of greater Arab League

2. But partitioning countries are no joke, a better alternative is for Iraq to stay united and continue with its original path of integration with Arab League or parts of it (GCC), this is the path I recommend for Iraq, but unfortunately it has become very difficult as Iraqi Shia's now will fear to integrate with a majority Sunni Arab League and may choose to go with No. 1

This is the crux of the problem that the Iranian theocracy have created with unexpected help (blunder of idiots in state department) from neocons/zionists.

Now please compare that to KSA activities in Sunni majority countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. KSA went there as a helper to the main driver USA, to prevent Soviet expansion and drive towards southern sea ports. I think KSA's concern was partly due to Iran's activities in these countries as well as to stop spreading of "god-less" communism in these domains, which is anathema to all Muslims, Shia and Sunni. Yes it created havoc for few decades, but now that chapter is almost over. Communism and Soviet Union are both dead.

Now, if and only if, the theocracy in Iran decides to stop their export of Shia extremism, then I believe the reaction from other sources to counter these efforts will reduce, sectarianism based on extremism will reduce and it will become easier for Eurasian economic integration, which is good for Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and former soviet countries. The ball is in your court my dear sister.

 

[kalu_miah]

Back on topic......

BBC News - Iran's new leader Rouhani urges 'serious' nuclear talks


..........

More on topic:
Rowhani's Challenge

........
One of the chief consequences of the Arab Spring has been that, for the first time in history, a global spotlight has been directed toward the region that highlights the voices of pro-democracy movements and exposes the behavior of dictatorial regimes. Sensitive to this new development, and not wanting to be equated with other repressive regimes facing internal insurrections, the Iranian leadership officially embraced the Arab Spring when it first emerged in Tunisia and Egypt. It attempted to own these uprisings by claiming this was the dawn of a new “Islamic Awakening,” inspired by the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and the political theology of Ayatollah Khomeini.16

The problem with this narrative is that the participants of these revolts, both secular and religious elements, have explicitly repudiated this claim. In fact, Islamist parties and intellectuals have pointed to Turkey and Erdoğan as their political model, not to Iran and Khamenei. Secondly, the Iranian regime has been placed in the awkward position of publicly celebrating the Arab Spring while cracking down internally on similar protests at home. In February 2011, the Green Movement called for demonstrations in solidarity with Tunisia and Egypt, where a common street slogan was “Mubarak, Ben Ali, now it’s the turn of Seyed Ali [Khamenei].” These protests were crushed and the leaders of the Green Movement were placed under house arrest, where they remain today. This event was a tremendous embarrassment for the Iranian regime, and its timing could not have been worse. And then came Syria.

When the Arab Spring spread to Syria, Tehran found itself in the awkward position of opposing a popular revolution while backing one of the most brutal regimes in the region. This has led to a significant loss of Iran’s soft power in the Middle East, where it formerly enjoyed considerable popularity among the Sunni masses for its opposition to American and Israeli policies.17 One small part of this story, which highlights the political contortions that Tehran has performed, took place in August 2012, when newly elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi travelled to Tehran for the Non-Aligned Movement summit meeting. Iran’s leaders were thrilled about Morsi’s visit, but to their embarrassment, parts of his keynote speech at the conference had to be censored, resulting in a public relations disaster. Morsi’s reference to rebels fighting a repressive regime was deliberately altered by the official state media to make it seem as if he were referring to Bahrain and not Syria.18
..............

Nader Hashemi is an associate professor of Middle East and Islamic politics and director of the Center for Middle East Studies in the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. He is the author of Islam, Secularism, and Liberal Democracy: Toward a Democratic Theory for Muslim Societies and co-editor of The People Reloaded: The Green Movement and the Struggle for Iran’s Future and, most recently, The Syria Dilemma.

Biography - Nader Hashemi
A well informed and knowledgeable Iranian.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Andronovo culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway not that it matters since they have been heavily mixed (as modern day genetics confirm) by now and conquered left and right by non-Persian people.

The point is that the original Persians were not from the Middle East let alone from the Iranian Plateau but Central Asia/Eurasian Steppe. The Middle East - in ancient times was completely dominated by Semitic people (like it is today) outside of Asia Minor (Anatolia - current day Turkey) and the Iranian Plateau. That region is our ancestral homeland.

It's good that you know of the origins of the Indo-Iranian people. Very few people I have ever met in real life know off Andronovo, or the fact that ancient Central Asia was remarkably different from its modern day inhabitants. It's not just Persians that originate from there though; other Iranic groups like the Pasthuns & Balochis originate from there too. The arrival of the Indo-Aryans in the north western regions of the Sub-Continent begun from there as well, some people refer to that as the Aryan invasion. In fact, the Vedic Aryans initially settled in Punjab before migrating towards Kashmir, & to some extent, other northern regions of the Sub-Continent. Linguistic evidence corroborates this fact as well, both Sanskrit & Avestan for instance, are sister languages, & we are all aware of the fact that sister languages' original speakers are interrelated people. By the way, here is an interesting map of the migrations of Indo-European people. It postulates our original homeland as being eastern Anatolia though.

Speaking of admixture, the Vedic Aryans for instance were aware of the fact that mixture with other races will destroy their appearance, & to some extent, it already has. However, many ethnicities in Pakistan; like the Kashmiris, Pasthuns, & Balochis, happen to be less mixed, & it’s easier to get a feel of what the ancient Indo-Aryans would have looked like through their appearance. Another problem modern day geneticists have to deal with is the lack of data regarding the genetic makeup of an ancient specimen from a particular ethnic group. Admixture does occur during conquests, but I get the feeling that those claims are often exaggerated; the majority naturally sticks to themselves & in the case of those that do end up mixing; their foreign genes end up getting diluted over time, albeit not entirely eliminated. In any case, this is an extremely interesting topic, & similar discussions have occurred here in the past. You will be surprised at how many people here are unaware of these facts.

 

[Desert Fox]

I agree entirely, Pakistan has way too many internal issues at the moment to deal with regional rivalries which are pretty much none of our business in the first place. Let others do what they want provided they don't harm us & vice versa. We need to focus on getting rid of corruption, extremism, sectarianism, power shortages, nepotism, terrorism, etc. Our economy is in dire need of repair too, & solving the previously mentioned problems would go a long way in fixing our economy.

Exactly. I don't see how this is so hard for some people to understand. Cleaning up our own country should be our main priority, NOT taking sides in conflicts that have absolutely nothing to do with us and instead would cause us further harm rather than any gains.

As far as foreign relations are concerned, it’s always been the case that every nation focuses on its own interests. We need to get our priorities in order as well; peaceful & friendly relations with our neighbors are a must. Any problem that affects them, will eventually affect us, case in point; Afghanistan. There are many other countries we need to improve our relations with, in terms of both economic & cultural exchange. Central Asian nations are just one group that Pakistan should focus at, but there are multitudes of nations too. I noticed that Pakistan's foreign policy involves focusing on becoming friendly or improving ties with a nation only if it’s an Islamic nation, or a rising economic or military power. I would suggest improving our trade relations & inviting foreign investors from South American countries, particularly Brazil & other Eastern European nations as well. Some students & cultural exchange programs to develop a friendly bond between communities would help too. You would be surprised at how friendly people are if they aren't avoided simply for not being part of the “ummah”.

Some initiatives in this regard do exist, but most of us know that the majority of our past initiatives to improve ties with pretty much anyone but a few haven't been fruitful.

True. Non-Muslim countries tend to be more reliable partners than so called "brotherly" nations. However, fixing our current image would assist in building a good reputation abroad. We should also open up cultural centers in Non-Muslim countries to present a good image of Pakistan. We have a rich history and unique culture, why not use it to our advantage?

As for Kashmir, I came to terms with this a long time ago that Kashmir is no one else's fight besides our own. Regardless of what some anonymous individuals on an Internet forum might say to appease Pakistanis, the simple fact is that in the real world no one besides us & a minuscule minority of foreign (mostly Asian) Muslims truly cares about the Kashmir issue. Don't expect anyone to cry for Kashmiris the way Pakistanis cry over the suffering of Palestinians. That is assuming that they know such an issue exists in the first place, the ignorance of foreign Muslims on the Kashmir issue is astounding. Some, who may know about it, do not consider it to be a religious conflict but rather a battle for land. In conclusion, I think its best that Pakistanis avoid becoming infatuated with other countries or cultures, & accept that the most important thing in the international arena is watching your own back.

Brilliantly put!

I never really expected Arabs to do anything in favor of the Kashmir cause. They can't even liberate an inch of Palestine despite there being 400,000,000 of them with all of there resources. In the end we will liberate the rest of Kashmir, just as we have liberated half of it already.

By bringing up Kashmir i just merely wanted to point out their hypocrisy and double standards. They claim to champion the Sunni cause and bash Iran and its "puppet" Assad for massacring Sunnis in Syria but yet have no qualms in making DEFENCE COOPERATION and trade agreements with a Hindu/Pagan/idol worshiping country which has butchered and continues to butcher SUNNI Muslims in Kashmir.

We don't need such "brothers". A enemy is better than such brothers.

 

[Desert Fox]

Pakistan is already too far gone in that regard bro. It will now take either a mass "reducation" process or an outright act of God to rid Pakistan of its sectarian vile.

The change has to come from the top levels, ie the policy makers, generals, officers, etc.

I'm afraid the "re-education" process has been and is currently taking place in the form of suicide bombings, attacks on important military and economic installations, suicide attacks on hospitals, market places, Mosques, schools, etc.

 

[al-Hasani]

I never really expected Arabs to do anything in favor of the Kashmir cause. They can't even liberate an inch of Palestine despite there being 400,000,000 of them with all of there resources. In the end we will liberate the rest of Kashmir, just as we have liberated half of it already.

No offence 7abibi but liberating Palestine is simply not going against Israel but the world's biggest superpower in the entire human history in the US, besides Western Europe, NATO and EU. If it was just that easy.

Same with Kashmir. What are you exactly expecting the Arab or for that matter MUSLIM countries (last time I checked we Arabs are not the only Muslims) to do when India is a atomic power with a population consisting of 1.2 billion people? Unlike the Arab world which is currently in turmoil, at least large parts of it, and not fully united? And which country do you think that the Western/Christian world would back? You make that guess.

Besides Arab help to Kashmir is not insigifincant.

Whether you like it or not then well over 200 million (more than all of Pakistan's Muslims) Indians are actually Muslims some of which have ties to the Arab world in places such as Kerala or even ancestral ties. India is not Liechtenstein so having some kind of relations with them is as normal as having relations with USA, China, Russia or the other main WORLD POWERS.

Besides 2.5 MILLION Indians, mostly Muslims, happen to live, work and contribute to KSA. We cannot just ignore them.

Moreover KSA has already picked sides long ago. Pakistan is our main non-Arab Muslim ally. If you can't see that then further discussion is pointless.

Anyway I know that you have a problem with Arabs but try to think in the wider picture for once.

 

[KingMamba]

The change has to come from the top levels, ie the policy makers, generals, officers, etc.

I'm afraid the "re-education" process has been and is currently taking place in the form of suicide bombings, attacks on important military and economic installations, suicide attacks on hospitals, market places, Mosques, schools, etc.

The top levels are content with this version of Pakistan. The change must come from the people, history tells us eventually all people rise against their oppressors. Sooner or later the serfs of Pakistan will say enough is enough. It may never happen in any of our lifetimes... but it will happen eventually. As of today Pakistan is still a oppressive serfdom.

 

[Desert Fox]

The Shias in Pakistan use to remain pretty low profile till 1979 advent of The big Khomeini revolution in IRAN. That is when this Khomeini revolution came to Pakistan and Pakistani Shias started following Khomeini. That is when Pakistani society seriously felt this Shia-Sunni rift. The reason for this rift was that after the Big Satan revolution all Pakistani Shias overnight became "Wanna be " Iranians and followers of Khomeini. The fact that Iranians started to export their Big Satan revolution to Pakistan did not sit too well with most Sunni Pakistanis.
@Yzd Khalifa , @kalu_miah

That is the same time when our "brotherly" countries started exporting their mentality to our region.

I am the biggest supporter of Shias in Pakistan. They are our countrymen and their life and liberty must be protected at all costs in Pakistan because they are citizens of Pakistan. But then Pakistani Shias will not go out in public and bash Sunni nations. I have never seen any Pakistani Shia unload this kind of venom on any TV talk shows or in Public.

There's a lot of Pakistani Shias here in the USA, not one said anything against Pakistan or any other Sunni country, at least not the ones i've met. I wonder what stopped them from talking trash about Sunnis in a non-Muslim secular country?

 

[Desert Fox]

No offence 7abibi but liberating Palestine is simply not going against Israel but the world's biggest superpower in the entire human history in the US, besides Western Europe, NATO and EU. If it was just that easy.

USA wasn't always a backer of israel.

The more the clock ticks the more it will become difficult to dislodge israel.

Same with Kashmir. What are you exactly expecting the Arab or for that matter MUSLIM countries (last time I checked we Arabs are not the only Muslims) to do when India is a atomic power with a population consisting of 1.2 billion people? Unlike the Arab world which is currently in turmoil, at least large parts of it, and not fully united? And which country do you think that the Western/Christian world would back? You make that guess.

I don't expect the Arabs to go to war with india over Kashmir. That is not what i implied. Kashmir is our struggle.

I was merely pointing out to some of my delusional countrymen that just as Arabs do whats in their interest by forming cordial relations with our enemy india, we too should look after our own national interest, even if it isn't in line with Arab agenda.

Besides Arab help to Kashmir is not insigifincant.

I guess it depends on the individual perspective. I personally don't think so. But as i said, i don't really expect Arabs to do much for Kashmir anyway as it holds no significance to Arab affairs like say Syria does. Arabs will naturally feel more empathy and affinity towards Palestine and Syria due to cultural and linguistic similarities than they would to a non-Arab country/people.

Whether you like it or not then well over 200 million (more than all of Pakistan's Muslims) Indians are actually Muslims some of which have ties to the Arab world in places such as Kerala or even ancestral ties. India is not Liechtenstein so having some kind of relations with them is as normal as having relations with USA, China, Russia or the other main WORLD POWERS.

india's Muslim population does not exceed that of Pakistan. Would appreciate the source of your claim that indian Muslim population is 200,000,000.

And again, i'm not suggesting that Saudi Arabia severe its strong ties with hindu/pagan india for Pakistan's or Kashmir's sake. I'm merely trying to open the eyes of some of my delusional countrymen that just as everyone, including Arabs look after their own interest, so should we.

Besides 2.5 MILLION Indians, mostly Muslims, happen to live, work and contribute to KSA. We cannot just ignore them.

No doubt.

Moreover KSA has already picked sides long ago. Pakistan is our main non-Arab Muslim ally. If you can't see that then further discussion is pointless.

I disagree with this here. Ally, how so? Did the United States, a NATO member/ally, form a joint defence cooperation agreement with Russia? Arms limitation treaties are not defence agreements BTW.

Neither does the USA appease the enemy of NATO (its ally countries) by extraditing the enemy nations wanted who they can then use against a NATO country.

Even China, a non-Muslim ally of Pakistan, has not made any such agreements with india.

I really can't find another example of any "ally" doing such.

Anyway I know that you have a problem with Arabs but try to think in the wider picture for once.

No problem with Arabs. Just waking up a few delusional countrymen, that's all.