Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[Brain357]

Then support your facts with links.

I already have. I've posted many, many links here in this thread. Such as . . .

How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast

Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine

Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster

And more . . .

Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.

Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.

Oh really, where is that? Post it.

You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis. They are your links. Let's see a quote. The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.

ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Vol. 14, No. 21 June 20, 2014

• Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”

• Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.

• The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.

• It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.

The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1

It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Iran has a general in Iraq fighting Isis. Your link seems mostly fiction.

 

[ChrisL]

Indeed. Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.

That is true. Having said that, there are clear separations of powers. One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.

Not quite accurate, bub:


U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2



Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.

Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran. He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran. Next.

That's the Obama spin, but it only fools moonbats such as you.

It is a fact. He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran. The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S. Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI

So, you think that a treaty is going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Is that what you're claiming now? The Obama administration and other liberal administrations around the world are trying to appease Iran obviously.

 

[orogenicman]

Then support your facts with links.

I already have. I've posted many, many links here in this thread. Such as . . .

How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast

Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine

Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster

And more . . .

Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.

Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.

Oh really, where is that? Post it.

You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis. They are your links. Let's see a quote. The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.

ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Vol. 14, No. 21 June 20, 2014

• Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”

• Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.

• The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.

• It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.

The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1

It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

So your argument is that ISIS is supported by Iran at the same time they are giving them a shellacking on the battlefield? Wow, your compartmentalization of duplicity is, in a word, astounding.

 

[ChrisL]

I already have. I've posted many, many links here in this thread. Such as . . .

How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast

Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine

Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster

And more . . .

Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.

Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.

Oh really, where is that? Post it.

You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis. They are your links. Let's see a quote. The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.

ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Vol. 14, No. 21 June 20, 2014

• Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”

• Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.

• The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.

• It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.

The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1

It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Iran has a general in Iraq fighting Isis. Your link seems mostly fiction.

Oh, they have a general? Wow! That really takes away all the facts in my links . . . Not. Iran are propaganda masters. Where do you think the palestinians learned it from?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Tom Cotton picked apart by Army general over mutinous Iran letter - The Washington Post

“What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,” Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.” The consequences of Cotton’s missive were plainly apparent to Eaton. “The breach of discipline is extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts, at this moment, brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran,” he said
Major Gen. Paul D. Eaton

Senior Advisor

 

[Brain357]

Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.

Oh really, where is that? Post it.

You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis. They are your links. Let's see a quote. The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.

ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Vol. 14, No. 21 June 20, 2014

• Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”

• Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.

• The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.

• It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.

The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1

It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Iran has a general in Iraq fighting Isis. Your link seems mostly fiction.

Oh, they have a general? Wow! That really takes away all the facts in my links . . . Not. Iran are propaganda masters. Where do you think the palestinians learned it from?

I didn't see facts, it was fiction. The fact is Iran is fighting Isis now.

 

[ChrisL]

I already have. I've posted many, many links here in this thread. Such as . . .

How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast

Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine

Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster

And more . . .

Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.

Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.

Oh really, where is that? Post it.

You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis. They are your links. Let's see a quote. The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.

ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Vol. 14, No. 21 June 20, 2014

• Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”

• Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.

• The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.

• It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.

The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1

It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

So your argument is that ISIS is supported by Iran at the same time they are giving them a shellacking on the battlefield? Wow, your compartmentalization of duplicity is, in a word, astounding.

Give me a link to where Iran is actively participating in the ISIS situation. What exactly have they done?

You need to be able to read between the lines where Iran is concerned.

Testifying on Capitol Hill on March 3, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey characterized the joint attempts of the Iraqi military, Iraqi Shia militias, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) at taking back control of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown, from the Islamic State, as “a positive thing.” “Frankly,” General Dempsey said, “it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism.”

General Dempsey’s caveat is an interesting one, since there is every reason to believe that Shia control of Tikrit will result in further sectarianism. While the US administration says in its most recent National Security Strategy that it desires to “degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL [Islamic State]” in an attempt to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists,” Tehran is actively perpetuating the sectarian crisis in Iraq.

The threat of the Islamic State, coupled with American “strategic patience,” not only makes the Iraqi Shia more dependent on Tehran and legitimizes Iran’s military presence in Iraq, it also provides the regime in Tehran with another bargaining chip in nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 Group.

In the past, the Iraqi Shia have demonstrated little interest in reducing themselves to puppets of Tehran. During the war with Iraq from 1980-1988, Iraqi nationalism trumped sectarian identity: the Shia constituted the rank and file of the Iraqi military, and Shia leaders in Iraq kept their distance from the regime in Tehran. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Iraq became a sanctuary to Iranian clerics critical of the regime in Tehran, including Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic.

But Iraq did not remain a refuge for long. The civil war in Iraq, followed by the rise of Islamic State, forced moderate Iraqi Shia, who otherwise would have pursued a line independent of Iran, to become dependencies of Tehran. After being rebuffed by the US following the Islamic State’s takeover of Mosul in 2014, General Qassem Atta, head of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, asked Tehran for help and received assistance within 48 hours. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi continues to press Washington for more support in his fight against the Islamic State and uses US hesitancy to justify reliance on Iran, which according to Vice President Iyad Allawi, only increases Iran’s influence in Iraq and could lead to dismantlement of the Iraqi state.

The Obama administration may desire to help secure the survival of the Iraqi state, but the small contingent of US advisers in Iraq is relying on a heavily Iranian-influenced Iraqi sectarian intelligence and security apparatus. The Iraqi security forces are predominantly Shia, and in addition, Shia militias and “advisers” from the IRGC Quds Force are now fighting as legitimate Iraqi forces.

This creates an environment in which targeting operations developed by Iranian forces and the militias have primacy over those developed by the US, leading to the possibility that Washington could be portrayed by Islamic State as complicit in the indiscriminate targeting of Sunnis. Such operations will be perceived the same way by the very Sunnis we need to fight Islamic State, thus undermining the US strategy to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists.”

Any US reliance on Iranian support in the fight against the Islamic State is also likely to strengthen Tehran’s bargaining position in the nuclear negotiations.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

• 
  10 Horrifying Facts About GOP Senator Tom Cotton
  Medea Benjamin, Nalini Ramachandran / AlterNet

 

[orogenicman]

That is true. Having said that, there are clear separations of powers. One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.

Not quite accurate, bub:


U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2



Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.

Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran. He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran. Next.

That's the Obama spin, but it only fools moonbats such as you.

It is a fact. He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran. The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S. Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI

So, you think that a treaty is going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Is that what you're claiming now? The Obama administration and other liberal administrations around the world are trying to appease Iran obviously.

Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't understand what would happen to their country were they to acquire, and then use nuclear weapons in the Middle East? They understand what is at stake far more than you do. That much is obvious. They fought a god-awful war with Iraq that ravaged their people. And the current sanctions have bankrupted and impoverished their country. They came to us, asking for discussions. They would not have done that if the sanctions weren't working. You people are too fast and loose with the cannons, and never think of the consequences. That makes you right wingers far more dangerous than Iran will ever be.

 

[ChrisL]

ChrL 10958476

All of my posts have been backed with facts and links, not pictures from google images.

Not this one:

ChrL 10956880

That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama.

I challenged your undocumented fact here:

NF 10957416

"a clear majority of 61% recommended making a deal with Iran that would include a limited enrichment capacity for Iran. This included 61% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents." University of Maryland Poll taken February 2015.

So as you claim that all of your posts have been backed with facts, that is indeed not a fact. So are two misstated facts right there.

I provided you with an in-depth poll, including the specific questions asked and the percentages, which shows that most Americans are against a nuclear Iran. That was a Gallup poll and was much more in depth than your post. Go back and read it, and you will see that you are wrong.

If you think, for one minute, that Americans support a nuclear Iran, then you are the one who is a dingbat around here. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

Not quite accurate, bub:


U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2



Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.

Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran. He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran. Next.

That's the Obama spin, but it only fools moonbats such as you.

It is a fact. He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran. The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S. Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI

So, you think that a treaty is going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Is that what you're claiming now? The Obama administration and other liberal administrations around the world are trying to appease Iran obviously.

Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't understand what would happen to their country were they to acquire, and then use nuclear weapons in the Middle East? They understand what is at stake far more than you do. That much is obvious. They fought a god-awful war with Iraq that ravaged their people. And the current sanctions have bankrupted and impoverished their country. They came to us, asking for discussions. They would not have done that if the sanctions weren't working. You people are too fast and loose with the cannons, and never think of the consequences. That makes you right wingers far more dangerous than Iran will ever be.

Did you read my link about the Iran/Syra/ISIS connection?

There is no "discussing" things with the insane, and the Iranian regime is insanity defined.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh really, where is that? Post it.

You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis. They are your links. Let's see a quote. The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.

ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Vol. 14, No. 21 June 20, 2014

• Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”

• Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.

• The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.

• It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.

The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1

It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Iran has a general in Iraq fighting Isis. Your link seems mostly fiction.

Oh, they have a general? Wow! That really takes away all the facts in my links . . . Not. Iran are propaganda masters. Where do you think the palestinians learned it from?

I didn't see facts, it was fiction. The fact is Iran is fighting Isis now.

You just keep repeating that. Lol. Obviously you cannot understand the links I've provided for you to read.

 

[HenryBHough]

If Iran were to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth there's would be immediate action from Regime Obama.

Apology for having having made Iran so long.

 

[orogenicman]

Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.

Oh really, where is that? Post it.

You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis. They are your links. Let's see a quote. The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.

ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Vol. 14, No. 21 June 20, 2014

• Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”

• Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.

• The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.

• It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.

The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1

It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

So your argument is that ISIS is supported by Iran at the same time they are giving them a shellacking on the battlefield? Wow, your compartmentalization of duplicity is, in a word, astounding.

Give me a link to where Iran is actively participating in the ISIS situation. What exactly have they done?

Iran Looms Over ISIS Fight as Baghdad-Tehran Alliance Moves to Tikrit

You need to be able to read between the lines where Iran is concerned.

Testifying on Capitol Hill on March 3, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey characterized the joint attempts of the Iraqi military, Iraqi Shia militias, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) at taking back control of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown, from the Islamic State, as “a positive thing.” “Frankly,” General Dempsey said, “it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism.”

General Dempsey’s caveat is an interesting one, since there is every reason to believe that Shia control of Tikrit will result in further sectarianism. While the US administration says in its most recent National Security Strategy that it desires to “degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL [Islamic State]” in an attempt to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists,” Tehran is actively perpetuating the sectarian crisis in Iraq.

The threat of the Islamic State, coupled with American “strategic patience,” not only makes the Iraqi Shia more dependent on Tehran and legitimizes Iran’s military presence in Iraq, it also provides the regime in Tehran with another bargaining chip in nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 Group.

In the past, the Iraqi Shia have demonstrated little interest in reducing themselves to puppets of Tehran. During the war with Iraq from 1980-1988, Iraqi nationalism trumped sectarian identity: the Shia constituted the rank and file of the Iraqi military, and Shia leaders in Iraq kept their distance from the regime in Tehran. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Iraq became a sanctuary to Iranian clerics critical of the regime in Tehran, including Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic.

But Iraq did not remain a refuge for long. The civil war in Iraq, followed by the rise of Islamic State, forced moderate Iraqi Shia, who otherwise would have pursued a line independent of Iran, to become dependencies of Tehran. After being rebuffed by the US following the Islamic State’s takeover of Mosul in 2014, General Qassem Atta, head of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, asked Tehran for help and received assistance within 48 hours. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi continues to press Washington for more support in his fight against the Islamic State and uses US hesitancy to justify reliance on Iran, which according to Vice President Iyad Allawi, only increases Iran’s influence in Iraq and could lead to dismantlement of the Iraqi state.

The Obama administration may desire to help secure the survival of the Iraqi state, but the small contingent of US advisers in Iraq is relying on a heavily Iranian-influenced Iraqi sectarian intelligence and security apparatus. The Iraqi security forces are predominantly Shia, and in addition, Shia militias and “advisers” from the IRGC Quds Force are now fighting as legitimate Iraqi forces.

This creates an environment in which targeting operations developed by Iranian forces and the militias have primacy over those developed by the US, leading to the possibility that Washington could be portrayed by Islamic State as complicit in the indiscriminate targeting of Sunnis. Such operations will be perceived the same way by the very Sunnis we need to fight Islamic State, thus undermining the US strategy to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists.”

Any US reliance on Iranian support in the fight against the Islamic State is also likely to strengthen Tehran’s bargaining position in the nuclear negotiations.

When you copy and poste from someone's publication, you need to give a citation. Otherwise, you could be accused of plagiarism.

 

[Lakhota]

Senator Tom Cotton seems to be getting a lot of funding from Jewish groups. Interesting...

Israel lobby's fingerprints are all over Republican letter to Iran but the media won't talk about it

Militaristic senator Cotton is funded by Abrams, Adelson and Kristol

Tom Cotton Gets Funds From Israeli Panel in Ark. Senate Race

You Will Be Shocked To Know Who's Been Grooming Tehran Tom - Crooks and Liars

 

[bendog]

Cool.... !!!!

Indeed. Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.

That is true. Having said that, there are clear separations of powers. One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.

Not quite accurate, bub:


U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2



Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.

Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran. He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran. Next.

That's just moonbat spin. The Obama Administration is negotiating directly, but claim it's a non-binding" plan:

Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.

"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing....

Iran deal A treaty or not a treaty that is the question - CNN.com

Not a treaty. CNN's just doing its usual spinning of "we must treat all opinions as though they are thoughtful and reasonable, even if a blind bat should know better." Tom Cotton's cottonpickkng numskull prank illustrates why it's nonbinding. Even assuming Iran complies, the US may still try to re-ramp up santions when there's a new potus. Thus, the US makes no promises binding our future behavior.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh really, where is that? Post it.

You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis. They are your links. Let's see a quote. The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.

ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Vol. 14, No. 21 June 20, 2014

• Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”

• Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.

• The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.

• It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.

The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1

It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

So your argument is that ISIS is supported by Iran at the same time they are giving them a shellacking on the battlefield? Wow, your compartmentalization of duplicity is, in a word, astounding.

Give me a link to where Iran is actively participating in the ISIS situation. What exactly have they done?

Iran Looms Over ISIS Fight as Baghdad-Tehran Alliance Moves to Tikrit

You need to be able to read between the lines where Iran is concerned.

Testifying on Capitol Hill on March 3, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey characterized the joint attempts of the Iraqi military, Iraqi Shia militias, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) at taking back control of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown, from the Islamic State, as “a positive thing.” “Frankly,” General Dempsey said, “it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism.”

General Dempsey’s caveat is an interesting one, since there is every reason to believe that Shia control of Tikrit will result in further sectarianism. While the US administration says in its most recent National Security Strategy that it desires to “degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL [Islamic State]” in an attempt to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists,” Tehran is actively perpetuating the sectarian crisis in Iraq.

The threat of the Islamic State, coupled with American “strategic patience,” not only makes the Iraqi Shia more dependent on Tehran and legitimizes Iran’s military presence in Iraq, it also provides the regime in Tehran with another bargaining chip in nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 Group.

In the past, the Iraqi Shia have demonstrated little interest in reducing themselves to puppets of Tehran. During the war with Iraq from 1980-1988, Iraqi nationalism trumped sectarian identity: the Shia constituted the rank and file of the Iraqi military, and Shia leaders in Iraq kept their distance from the regime in Tehran. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Iraq became a sanctuary to Iranian clerics critical of the regime in Tehran, including Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic.

But Iraq did not remain a refuge for long. The civil war in Iraq, followed by the rise of Islamic State, forced moderate Iraqi Shia, who otherwise would have pursued a line independent of Iran, to become dependencies of Tehran. After being rebuffed by the US following the Islamic State’s takeover of Mosul in 2014, General Qassem Atta, head of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, asked Tehran for help and received assistance within 48 hours. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi continues to press Washington for more support in his fight against the Islamic State and uses US hesitancy to justify reliance on Iran, which according to Vice President Iyad Allawi, only increases Iran’s influence in Iraq and could lead to dismantlement of the Iraqi state.

The Obama administration may desire to help secure the survival of the Iraqi state, but the small contingent of US advisers in Iraq is relying on a heavily Iranian-influenced Iraqi sectarian intelligence and security apparatus. The Iraqi security forces are predominantly Shia, and in addition, Shia militias and “advisers” from the IRGC Quds Force are now fighting as legitimate Iraqi forces.

This creates an environment in which targeting operations developed by Iranian forces and the militias have primacy over those developed by the US, leading to the possibility that Washington could be portrayed by Islamic State as complicit in the indiscriminate targeting of Sunnis. Such operations will be perceived the same way by the very Sunnis we need to fight Islamic State, thus undermining the US strategy to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists.”

Any US reliance on Iranian support in the fight against the Islamic State is also likely to strengthen Tehran’s bargaining position in the nuclear negotiations.

When you copy and poste from someone's publication, you need to give a citation. Otherwise, you could be accused of plagiarism.

The link is at the bottom of the page, and my second post stated that it was a continuation because I didn't want to put all of that info on the same page. It is still credited at the bottom of the page, as are ALL of my data.

And here is more . . .

Syrian Kurds blame Iran Turkey for ISIS attacks - Al-Monitor the Pulse of the Middle East

QAMISHLI, Syria — Redur Xelil, spokesman for the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), spoke to Al-Monitor about the intensified clashes between the al-Qaeda splinter group, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and the Kurds in northern Syria. For the first time, the YPG openly called on Kurds from outside of Syria to join the movement.

Summary⎙ Print Syria's main Kurdish force, the Democratic Union Party, says that the ISIS battle with Syrian Kurdish groups is benefiting the Syrian government.
Author Wladimir van WilgenburgPosted Март 30, 2014
ISIS, formerly an al-Qaeda affiliate, has been assaulting the Kurdish inhabited city of Kobani in the province of Aleppo from three sides since March 15. This area is one of the three regions where the Kurds announced autonomous canton administrations close to the border with Turkey.

Kobani holds a symbolic role as the first town that was captured by Kurdish forces on July 19, 2012, as part of a campaign to control Kurdish areas. The creation of the YPG was also first announced in the city in 2012. “Kobani was the first city that was liberated from the regime in Rojava [the western part of Kurdistan in Syria],” said Xelil.

According to Xelil, there are two main rationales behind the attacks on Kobani. First, he said ISIS' agenda is to expand to other regions. Second, he said the regime is having a hard time with the Kurds, and may be engaged in a campaign to weaken them "and remove the new democratic experiment of the Kurds.”

It is not just the YPG and Kurdish parties affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) such as the Democratic Union Party (PYD) that think the regime is behind the attacks. The rival Kurdish coalition, the Kurdish National Council (KNC) backed by Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq, concurs that the regime might be playing a role.

Ismail Heme, a member of a KNC party, told Al-Monitor, “Perhaps the regime is playing this game to weaken both ISIS and the PYD.”

On March 12, Syrian government forces killed a YPG fighter in Qamishli after ISIS suicide attacks took the lives of several civilians in the same city. “The regime is trying to weaken the Kurds. They also know we are in a fight with the ISIS. Our fight with ISIS is serving the regime no doubt,” Xelil said.

Kurdish politicians such as PYD leader Salih Muslim also blame Iran and Turkey for the ISIS attacks. “I think there is an Iranian hand in this. This is how we can explain this attack of the ISIS in Kobani,” Xelil added.

The YPG hopes that with the support of other Kurds, they can open the road from Hassakeh province to the isolated enclave of Kobani. “If they support us, we can open the way from Jazeera [Hassakeh province] to Kobani,” Xelil said.

On March 24, the YPG called on all Kurdish parties in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria to unite against the jihadist threats against the Kurdish regions in Syria.

“The aim of the attack is the Kurdish existence in general. We don’t think the attacks will be limited to Kobani. They threaten all Kurdish people. The statement was for the Kurds to unite against the ISIS,” Xelil said.



Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ru/...-isis-syria-regime-kobani.html##ixzz3UIKsmIwH

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

At the recent CPAC gathering, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a likely Republican presidential candidate, seemed to stumble on one of the basic facts of the Middle East. “The reason Obama hasn’t put in place a military strategy to defeat ISIS is because he doesn’t want to upset Iran,” the Florida Republican said.

The senator seemed confused. In reality, President Obama has put an anti-ISIS military strategy in place, and that’s fine with Iran, since Iran and ISIS are enemies.

I’d hoped that Rubio just misspoke, or had been briefed poorly by an aide, but apparently not - -at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing this afternoon, the far-right Floridian continued to push this strange theory, pressing Secretary of State John Kerry on the point. “I believe that much of our strategy with regards to ISIS is being driven by a desire not to upset Iran so they don’t walk away from the negotiating table on the deal that you’re working on,” Rubio said. “Tell me why I’m wrong.”

And so, Kerry told him why he’s wrong.

Kerry teaches Rubio the basics about the Middle East | MSNBC

 

[Brain357]

You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis. They are your links. Let's see a quote. The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.

ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Vol. 14, No. 21 June 20, 2014

• Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”

• Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.

• The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.

• It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.

The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1

It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Iran has a general in Iraq fighting Isis. Your link seems mostly fiction.

Oh, they have a general? Wow! That really takes away all the facts in my links . . . Not. Iran are propaganda masters. Where do you think the palestinians learned it from?

I didn't see facts, it was fiction. The fact is Iran is fighting Isis now.

You just keep repeating that. Lol. Obviously you cannot understand the links I've provided for you to read.

Hatchet-Wielding Lunatic Kills ISIS Thrills Iran The Daily Caller

 

[ChrisL]

Oh really, where is that? Post it.

You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis. They are your links. Let's see a quote. The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.

ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Vol. 14, No. 21 June 20, 2014

• Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”

• Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.

• The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.

• It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.

The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1

It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

So your argument is that ISIS is supported by Iran at the same time they are giving them a shellacking on the battlefield? Wow, your compartmentalization of duplicity is, in a word, astounding.

Give me a link to where Iran is actively participating in the ISIS situation. What exactly have they done?

Iran Looms Over ISIS Fight as Baghdad-Tehran Alliance Moves to Tikrit

You need to be able to read between the lines where Iran is concerned.

Testifying on Capitol Hill on March 3, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey characterized the joint attempts of the Iraqi military, Iraqi Shia militias, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) at taking back control of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown, from the Islamic State, as “a positive thing.” “Frankly,” General Dempsey said, “it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism.”

General Dempsey’s caveat is an interesting one, since there is every reason to believe that Shia control of Tikrit will result in further sectarianism. While the US administration says in its most recent National Security Strategy that it desires to “degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL [Islamic State]” in an attempt to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists,” Tehran is actively perpetuating the sectarian crisis in Iraq.

The threat of the Islamic State, coupled with American “strategic patience,” not only makes the Iraqi Shia more dependent on Tehran and legitimizes Iran’s military presence in Iraq, it also provides the regime in Tehran with another bargaining chip in nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 Group.

In the past, the Iraqi Shia have demonstrated little interest in reducing themselves to puppets of Tehran. During the war with Iraq from 1980-1988, Iraqi nationalism trumped sectarian identity: the Shia constituted the rank and file of the Iraqi military, and Shia leaders in Iraq kept their distance from the regime in Tehran. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Iraq became a sanctuary to Iranian clerics critical of the regime in Tehran, including Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic.

But Iraq did not remain a refuge for long. The civil war in Iraq, followed by the rise of Islamic State, forced moderate Iraqi Shia, who otherwise would have pursued a line independent of Iran, to become dependencies of Tehran. After being rebuffed by the US following the Islamic State’s takeover of Mosul in 2014, General Qassem Atta, head of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, asked Tehran for help and received assistance within 48 hours. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi continues to press Washington for more support in his fight against the Islamic State and uses US hesitancy to justify reliance on Iran, which according to Vice President Iyad Allawi, only increases Iran’s influence in Iraq and could lead to dismantlement of the Iraqi state.

The Obama administration may desire to help secure the survival of the Iraqi state, but the small contingent of US advisers in Iraq is relying on a heavily Iranian-influenced Iraqi sectarian intelligence and security apparatus. The Iraqi security forces are predominantly Shia, and in addition, Shia militias and “advisers” from the IRGC Quds Force are now fighting as legitimate Iraqi forces.

This creates an environment in which targeting operations developed by Iranian forces and the militias have primacy over those developed by the US, leading to the possibility that Washington could be portrayed by Islamic State as complicit in the indiscriminate targeting of Sunnis. Such operations will be perceived the same way by the very Sunnis we need to fight Islamic State, thus undermining the US strategy to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists.”

Any US reliance on Iranian support in the fight against the Islamic State is also likely to strengthen Tehran’s bargaining position in the nuclear negotiations.

When you copy and poste from someone's publication, you need to give a citation. Otherwise, you could be accused of plagiarism.

Oh, I did forget the link on that particular post. Here it is . . . Analysis Iran is no partner in the fight against the Islamic State The Long War Journal