world

Iranian role in fighting IS in Iraq: Where will it lead?

37 Comments
By ROBERT BURNS

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

37 Comments
Login to comment

Well, at least someone (the Iranians) are committing themselves to taking on IS without any fear and going frontline with the fight. Rather than the U.S. 'express concern' over Iran's profile in Iraq, why not share the same commitment? And I cannot see a much better opportunity for the Iranians and the U.S. to finally thaw their standoff and resume some kind of relationship, irrespective of outside criticism.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

The US authorities go around the world lighting fires and then are alarmed when these spread with unintended consequences, such as the rise of IS and now Iran's involvement. Isn't it time for a different approach, but that might mean reduced arms sales, which can't be allowed to happen.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

@TigersTokyoDome If there's one thing the Islamists have demonstrated it is that they can unify around fighting non-muslims. Will they also unify against fighting Shiite Iran? Maybe, but they also have been fighting Shiite Iraq with not exactly stunning success, despite the headlines. The point is, if Muslims want to kill each other, that is fine, but the US ain't going to put lives on the line for crazy (again).

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

using tgis kind of proxy wars to stop those islamic fanatics is proven to be failed. US or Nato will be needed to bring back to iraq that is inevitable . The republicans will back to stage after Obama.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Shia Caliphate....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Frankly, it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism,”

Oh boy...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, at least someone (the Iranians) are committing themselves to taking on IS without any fear and going frontline with the fight. Rather than the U.S. 'express concern' over Iran's profile in Iraq, why not share the same commitment? And I cannot see a much better opportunity for the Iranians and the U.S. to finally thaw their standoff and resume some kind of relationship, irrespective of outside criticism.

You honestly think Iran is fighting ISIS for the benifit of world peace? ISIS is a thorn in the Iranians side and if they can crush ISIS, that gives them more landmass and territories. What about the Sunni states? They are all in a panic about the Iranians spread of dominance and influence, which leaves us back to what happens if Iran gets its chance to make a bomb, you would have to be a complete fool to think the Iranians are just going to do a complete turnaround and put their hatred of the US, 36 years mind you away as if it were just a small thing. What gets me about Libs is that, they'd rather have Obama go with a bad deal, than NO deal at all and what benefit do we get from all of this? The other day, while Kerry was negotiating with the Iranians, their military was blowing up a mock US air carrier, right there, Kerry should have walked out! I just don't get why Dems think the only way towards a peaceful resolution is complete capitulation.

Oh boy...

This is exactly why libs have NO idea about dealing with foreign policy.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Iran, as the leader of the Shiite sect, has legitimate interests in many Middle Eastern countries. In fact, a confident Iran could well prove a measure of stability in that chaotic region, as well as a needed counterbalance to unhinged Sunni extremism. This would be facilitated by, initially, America recognizing Iran's interests, and later, perhaps, cooperation.

A nuclear agreement would be a good first step, but only a first step. Goodwill on both sides should be encouraged and, if displayed, developed.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Iran, as the leader of the Shiite sect, has legitimate interests in many Middle Eastern countries. In fact, a confident Iran could well prove a measure of stability in that chaotic region, as well as a needed counterbalance to unhinged Sunni extremism.

So if the Sunnis are unhinged, I'll grant you that, what does that make the Iranians over the last 36 years? Or do you need a chronological timeline of their past aggressions?

This would be facilitated by, initially, America recognizing Iran's interests, and later, perhaps, cooperation.

In other words, let them have a bomb and allow them to threaten Israel and their Sunni neighbors, sounds like a sweet deal to me.

A nuclear agreement would be a good first step, but only a first step. Goodwill on both sides should be encouraged and, if displayed, developed

Yeah, in a bizarro world perhaps.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

bass4funk, You seem to be assuming that a) any English language post on here is American and b) that any slightly positive comments about Iran are from liberal democrats. I am neither American nor a liberal democrat so my opinion about the Iranians rolling their sleeves up with IS stands. And are the Iranians with the bomb really that much more of a threat than the U.S./ Russia/ Israel with the bomb? Considering recent events involving those three nations (Iraq, Ukraine, Palestine).

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The Saudis and Qataris and Iranians saw the Russians and Americans playing and decided to start their own surrogate war.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Is it appropriate to say 'Mission Accomplished' here?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You seem to be assuming that a) any English language post on here is American and b) that any slightly positive comments about Iran are from liberal democrats. I am neither American nor a liberal democrat so my opinion about the Iranians rolling their sleeves up with IS stands.

You can have your opinion and I will go by factual history and so far, the last 36 years Iran has NOT been even remotely close to what you would call a friend an ally or even having a cordial relationship. I don't trust them, the Israelis don't trust them, the Sunni states don't trust them, so if you go by the majority of what Iran has done, this deal is beyond bad, not to mention, Obama is contributing to a ME arms race.

And are the Iranians with the bomb really that much more of a threat than the U.S./ Russia/ Israel with the bomb?

Yes! Without a doubt, because of the signed MAD agreement: "Mutual Assured Destruction" neither side wanted that worse case scenario, but Iran is a different can of worms. They are going by Ideology that says and calls for the destruction of the Jews.

Considering recent events involving those three nations (Iraq, Ukraine, Palestine).

Now you want to compare apples and oranges??

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

So, bass, what are the terms of the deal?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If American politicians are worried about Iranians, they should not create opportunities for them its that simple. With lies they destroyed Iraq and now they are worried ... What a joke

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, @bass4funk, let's talk facts.

In 1953, the US and British orchestrated a coup d'état that overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and brought the Shah to power as an absolute monarch, where he ruled brutally until 1979. This rule of imprisonments, torture and executions gave rise to the islamic revolution and the hostage crisis. Fact: one of those imprisoned and tortured was Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Fact: US military bases envelop Iran, so the question we can ask is who is threatening whom?

Fact: the US gave chemical weapons to Iraq that were used on Iranians during the Iraq-Iran war, which US backed Iraq, and not Iran, started.

Fact: Iran is a country that has not invaded another country in over 300 years. This cannot be said of the US, England, Israel, and other countries you seem to assume act rationally.

Now where are your facts?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Hey Bass - why don't you make a list of countries that Iran has invaded in the past 50 years.

Now make a list of countries that the US has invaded over the past 50 years.

Which country looks scarier to you?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Iran is fighting ISIS Iraq is fighting ISIS Syria is fighting ISIS

So who is supporting ISIS? They must have regional backer and ally...

You bet they do. It's Saudi Arabia.

But don't ever... ever expect the Obama to challenge the Abdullah family about that.

The Saudis get a free pass... on everything.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

So, bass, what are the terms of the deal?

Don't know, but anything short of NON-proliferation is and should be unacceptable. As long as they take a hostile threatining position towards Israel and the Sunni states, there should be NO deal.

In 1953, the US and British orchestrated a coup d'état that overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and brought the Shah to power as an absolute monarch, where he ruled brutally until 1979. This rule of imprisonments, torture and executions gave rise to the islamic revolution and the hostage crisis. Fact: one of those imprisoned and tortured was Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Yes, I know, but that has nothing to do with what Iran is trying to do. You seem to think that if The US and the UK somehow repent that all this will just somehow, someway disappear and the slate will be clean and Iran will be a model nation and work with us?

Fact: US military bases envelop Iran, so the question we can ask is who is threatening whom?

Of course, when they threaten our allies, we should protect them no matter what.

Fact: the US gave chemical weapons to Iraq that were used on Iranians during the Iraq-Iran war, which US backed Iraq, and not Iran, started.

The enemy of my enemy...we get it...

Fact: Iran is a country that has not invaded another country in over 300 years. This cannot be said of the US, England, Israel, and other countries you seem to assume act rationally.

But Iran did say that the US is the great Satan and that Israel should be wiped clean from the region, hmmmm...sounds like a threat to me. A country that although did not invade us was THE largest sponsor of radical and modern terrorism and you think based on what you call facts, the US, Israel and everyone else should allow the Iranians to kick them in the Cojenes and just shut up??

Now where are your facts?

Well, for one positive thing about all of this mess that his majesty wrought upon us, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Obama wants in all his sneakiness try to bypass congress and see if he can make a deal instead of a treaty if there is a deal, it is NOT binding and once he's out of office (another 685 days, Hallelujah) that deal will be voided and the next president will have to start all over again and he would have to go through congress and it would have to be approved and signed off by them, in other words, this deal is temporary and good for about 18 months and once this clown is out, we can hopefully have a leader with some sense and backbone to really deal with the Iranians with a show of strength and NOT weakness.

There you go.

@strange

If Iran is so good, why not move there. I'm sure they value freedom, women's rights, religious rights and gay rights and I'm sure they have a strong capitalist society where anyone can be anything they want. The opportunities are abundant in Iran. So all the Iranians that live in my hometown (we have one of the largest community outside of LA.) they are wasting there time and should give up they lives and move back to the country that cherishes and upholds all human and political rights.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

But Iran did say that the US is the great Satan and that Israel should be wiped clean from the region, hmmmm...sounds like a threat to me

The "wipe off the map" comment has been debunked, it was a totally incorrect translation.

Iran already has enough Chem and Bio weapons to wipe out Israel but hasn't used them and never will unless they're attacked.

THE largest sponsor of radical and modern terrorism

What? Did you read the article. Iran is fighting AGAINST ISIS. Iran has also been fighting Al Qaeda in Syria for 3 years now.

The biggest sponsor of radical Islam is US ally Saudi Arabia.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

"Iran already has enough Chem and Bio weapons to wipe out Israel"

What's up with Iran having all these weapons of mass destruction, Burning Bush?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The "wipe off the map" comment has been debunked,

Really? That is great. When exactly did Ahmadinejad, you know the guy who actually made the statement, debunk it? Can I have a link to that information, please?

it was a totally incorrect translation.

Umm...That 'totally incorrect translation' was done by IRNA Islamic Republican News Agency, the news agency that government-funded and controlled under the Iranian Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Bass

But Iran did say that the US is the great Satan and that Israel should be wiped clean from the region, hmmmm...sounds like a threat to me.

NK has also threatened to destroy America's allies and thinks of the US as the greatest enemy in the history of the world... so where's the difference?

Also, why has America taken it upon itself to decide who does and does not have nuclear weapons? Who made them God?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Also, why has America taken it upon itself to decide who does and does not have nuclear weapons?

I maybe mistaken, but I am pretty sure that France has an even stronger anti-Iranian nuclear weapon stance than even the US does.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What's up with Iran having all these weapons of mass destruction, Burning Bush?

What's up with the USA having all these weapons of mass destruction, Serrano?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

The "wipe off the map" comment has been debunked, it was a totally incorrect translation.

Oh, so that means, the Sunni nations shouldn't Iran literally then is what you're saying, it's just all hot air, right. Everyone is wrong except Obama, Kerry and the Iranians. ROFL!

Iran already has enough Chem and Bio weapons to wipe out Israel but hasn't used them and never will unless they're attacked

Until they are ready for a larger more destructive bomb by proxy they will have groups like Hamas, Hezbollah do their dirty work.

What? Did you read the article. Iran is fighting AGAINST ISIS. Iran has also been fighting Al Qaeda in Syria for 3 years now.

The biggest sponsor of radical Islam is US ally Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, if that were only true. Don't depend too much on Wiki to make a point, seriously.

http://www.clarionproject.org/sites/default/files/Iranian-Support-For-Terrorism.pdf

NK has also threatened to destroy America's allies and thinks of the US as the greatest enemy in the history of the world... so where's the difference?

How many groups and organizations of people that you know that we're responsible for killing hundreds of Americans. Also the NK people aren't Muslim. They don't follow an ideology, they are NOT religious, unlike the Iranians that ARE very religious and go by what the Koran says.and there is way off the wall that's crazy.

Also, why has America taken it upon itself to decide who does and does not have nuclear weapons? Who made them God? No one, but as most libs don't really understand how the world works is that, there are some nations that are more unstable than others. As a member of the UN Security Council, WE CAN indeed say who can and who can't have a nuke.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

This is kinda' like watchin' ---- and this is not meanin' to downplay the seriousness of this ISIS/ISIL-Iran situation and their collective belligerence with and towards the rest of the world nor each organization's atrocities ---- the first three episodes of Star Wars (Eps. I, II, and III): it looks like two sides fightin' each other, but really, there's only one in control of the whole mess. Both Iran and ISIS/ISIL are terrorist states and terrorist supporting states. No matter which "side" "wins" in this, the rest of the world ---- particularly those within the domain and control or sphere of control ---- loses....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Jason Lovelace: This is kinda' like watchin' ---- and this is not meanin' to downplay the seriousness of this ISIS/ISIL-Iran situation and their collective belligerence with and towards the rest of the world nor each organization's atrocities ---- the first three episodes of Star Wars (Eps. I, II, and III): it looks like two sides fightin' each other, but really, there's only one in control of the whole mess.

Yes! With Obama as Emperor Palpatine!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@bass4funk

I noticed you didn't actually provide any facts and conveniently brushed aside ones that don't fit comfortably with your two-colour moralistic worldview.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I noticed you didn't actually provide any facts and conveniently brushed aside ones that don't fit comfortably with your two-colour moralistic worldview.

No, I didn't. I know and understand everything you said, I lived through all of the events, however, you didn't acknowledge what I said and that was This deal that Obama wants to make since it's NOT not an approved congressional signed treaty, will be voided once he turns over the keys to the next president and the. We will be back at square one again. Obama knows this and as to why this guy wants to make a deal he knows will be nullified once he's out of office just baffles me. The only other conclusion why he wants this is for pure legacy and bragging rights, that's about it.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

This deal that Obama wants to make since it's NOT not an approved congressional signed treaty, will be voided once he turns over the keys to the next president and the. We will be back at square one again.

The next president will likely be a Democrat considering the Republicans don't have an electable candidate among them. Any deal that's made will continue past this presidency.

Obama knows this and as to why this guy wants to make a deal he knows will be nullified once he's out of office just baffles me.

Maybe because it's the right thing to do? The situation in the Middle East is a mess with plenty of blame to go around to all involved. Mending relationships requires a certain degree of trust on both sides. Right now Iran wants nuclear power. Why should they be denied what every other country is allowed to benefit from? Of course some measures to prevent nuclear armament would be necessary, and obviously any deal would include them. Do you really think Obama wants a nuclear-armed Iran, or do you just think he doesn't care because he's a Muslim?

The only other conclusion why he wants this is for pure legacy and bragging rights, that's about it.

Your blindness to everything but your hate for Obama is staggering. Do you ever question the Republican congress's motives for blocking EVERYTHING Obama does? You'll probably say it's because he's an incompetent moron, but what policies have the Republicans offered that benefited anyone but corporations? And what about Netanyahu's motives for his speech? He knows Obama's not going to just walk away. But he has an election coming up and knows his conservative base and guys like you eat up this sort of tough guy rhetoric.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The next president will likely be a Democrat considering the Republicans don't have an electable candidate among them. Any deal that's made will continue past this presidency

But it's not April 1st yet, but still very funny!

Maybe because it's the right thing to do? The situation in the Middle East is a mess with plenty of blame to go around to all involved. Mending relationships requires a certain degree of trust on both sides.

After 36 years, where in the history did Iran show that they were sincere and now all of a sudden, they have a change of heart????

Right now Iran wants nuclear power. Why should they be denied what every other country is allowed to benefit from?

So it's ok for Iran to threaten Israel and the Sunni states and to act on it, that's very nice to know, so then if Israel feels a nuclear Iran is a threat, which they are, it's ok with you, definetly with me to bomb them.

Of course some measures to prevent nuclear armament would be necessary, and obviously any deal would include them.

And who's going to make them abide by the deal?? Obama? Kerry?

Do you really think Obama wants a nuclear-armed Iran, or do you just think he doesn't care because he's a Muslim?

I hYour blindness to everything but your hate for Obama is staggering.

Yes, I do hate his policies, I believe he is probably a good father, but as a leader of this country, absolute failure!

Do you ever question the Republican congress's motives for blocking EVERYTHING Obama does?

Why should the GOP follow policies they don't believe in, the Dems wouldn't do if the shoe were on the opposite foot.

You'll probably say it's because he's an incompetent moron, but what policies have the Republicans offered that benefited anyone but corporations?

What policies have the Dems provided that the environmentalist and the Unions didn't get any benifit?

And what about Netanyahu's motives for his speech? He knows Obama's not going to just walk away.

And neither should BB, particularly when it involves the safety of the loves of people in his country!

But he has an election coming up and knows his conservative base and guys like you eat up this sort of tough guy rhetoric.onestly don't know. The way he acts is questionable....

and Obama wants to ensure his legacy and is willing to throw our allies under the bus and doesn't care what happens in the ME, Sunnis included. He is in fact responsible for a now possible ME arms race.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Iran is so good, why not move there.

Way to conveniently avoid the question, by claiming I said something I didn't say.

So to repeat, make a list of countries the U.S. has invaded in the past 50 years, and the countries Iran has invaded in the past 50 years and tell me which one looks scarier.

And for the record, I wouldn't choose to live in either the US or Iran.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Way to conveniently avoid the question, by claiming I said something I didn't say.

Not avoiding anything, I was just asking a question, followed by a statement.

So to repeat, make a list of countries the U.S. has invaded in the past 50 years, and the countries Iran has invaded in the past 50 years and tell me which one looks scarier.

Iran without a doubt and I will say this again, if you think the US looks scarier, which country has more people trying to risk their lives and will do whatever it takes to enter a country where they can worship the way they want, live the way they want, have NO ceiling, opportunities to create their own destiny and wealth, don't have to worry about being persecuted for being of a different sexual orientation and I could go on and on for the next week. Now when you see people risking life and limb to get into Tehran, I'll shut up.

And for the record, I wouldn't choose to live in either the US or Iran.

Very, very happy to hear that!!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

a country where they can worship the way they want, live the way they want, have NO ceiling, opportunities to create their own destiny and wealth, don't have to worry about being persecuted for being of a different sexual orientation

That doesn't describe Iran OR the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about Iran gobbling up Baghdad, Demascus, Beirut and Aden, closing their grip in the region, making the Saudis and the other Sunnis nervous? Yeah, that kind of encroachment I'd call an invasion. And it its permanent and here to stay.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites