Iran: No deal reached, only framework; Iran can still enrich

thought it was pretty normal to work on agreement while killing each others, at least history has plenty of those

 

The Houthi rebels are clearing way for ISIS and other terrorist groups to take root in the chaos there. The old Yemen government was our "friend" as far as fighting terrorism (well, as far as friends go in that region).

Outside of basically everyone hating ISIS, all the relationships in that part of the world are complicated and there are really no enduring alliances or enemies. Syria is the same - it's a choice between an Iran-supported brutal dictator or reformers mixed with ISIS.

 

I think you are off on this one Major. The Houthis are Shia and would be anti al queda and anti isis because isis would try to kill them. In no way do they want isis there.

 

Yes, I was wondering about that comment as well.

 

Which primitive assholes should I be cheering for?

 

Yeah, I think Obama is forming ad hoc coalitions to achieve certain goals with ISIS and Yemen. It's a smart strategy.

 

The one's most likely to let oil profits flow freely to Western companies .
(it's seems it's the only common thread for our allegiances)

 

Look @ the mirror ..yes that's one

 

Did anybody hear Michelle Bachman compare Obama to the suicidal German pilot? Or the comment from the Republican senator who stated Neville Chamberlain got a better deal from Hitler?!? I place too much faith in the intelligence and rational thinking of the American people NOT to elect ass clowns like this.

 

Beautiful!

Obama has another "no *****s left to give" moment!

Obama Obliterates John McCain, Mitch McConnell And The GOP For Undermining America

President Obama called out Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and all of the Senate Republicans who are actively trying to sabotage his foreign policy on the world stage.

The President said:

Last comment I’m going to make on this. When I hear some, like Senator McCain recently, suggest that our Secretary of State, John Kerry, who served in the United States Senate, a Vietnam veteran, who’s provided exemplary service to this nation, is somehow less trustworthy in the interpretation of what’s in a political agreement than the Supreme Leader of Iran — that’s an indication of the degree to which partisanship has crossed all boundaries. And we’re seeing this again and again. We saw it with the letter by the 47 senators who communicated directly to the Supreme Leader of Iran — the person that they say can’t be trusted at all — warning him not to trust the United States government.

We have Mitch McConnell trying to tell the world, oh, don’t have confidence in the U.S. government’s abilities to fulfill any climate change pledge that we might make. And now we have a senator suggesting that our Secretary of State is purposely misinterpreting the deal and giving the Supreme Leader of Iran the benefit of the doubt in the interpretations.

That’s not how we’re supposed to run foreign policy, regardless of who’s President or Secretary of State. We can have arguments, and there are legitimate arguments to be had. I understand why people might be mistrustful of Iran. I understand why people might oppose the deal — although the reason is not because this is a bad deal per se, but they just don’t trust any deal with Iran, and may prefer to take a military approach to it.

But when you start getting to the point where you are actively communicating that the United States government and our Secretary of State is somehow spinning presentations in a negotiation with a foreign power, particularly one that you say is your enemy, that’s a problem. It needs to stop.

 

I'm not sure anybody should be framing this in terms of a deal just yet. Everyone is getting back together next week. Also, this deal is expected to close in June when OPEC meets to decide about production cuts and the Fed meets to decide about interest rate invrease.

 

The rebels don't *want* ISIS there - but they are enabling them because ISIS goes anywhere that there is chaos and instability. That's how they got their footholds in Iraq and Syria. The same is a huge concern for the US in Yemen, which already was fertile ground for terrorists. Like Syria, all the groups will be fighting each other and forming bizarre and non-logical alliances, but ISIS will be there and take advantage of the mess.

 

Here are some articles about ISIS taking advantage of the Yemen mess:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/29/How-Yemen-Making-ISIS-and-al-Qaeda-Even-More-Dangerous

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...sia-isis-launches-a-global-war-of-terror.html

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/...ges-Unholy-Alliance-Between-al-Qaeda-and-ISIS

 

Imo the US has done more to enable ISIS and al Queda to gain a foothold thru botched drone strikes based on poor intelligence.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/01/ibrahim-mothana-yemen-drones-obama

And for some history here's a few quick editorials from the Yemen Post in 2010

http://yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=3&SubID=1749&MainCat=2

And 2012

http://yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=3&SubID=5960&MainCat=2

http://yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=3&SubID=6368&MainCat=2

and 2013

http://yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=3&SubID=7092&MainCat=2

and 2014

http://yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=3&SubID=7814&MainCat=2

 

Oh I don't disagree with that. But the question was why the US was supporting the Yemen government against the rebels - it's because the US doesn't want complete chaos in Yemen, which creates terrorist havens. Even if our actions were counterproductive, the previous government was letting us do what we wanted.

 

It doesn't seem like there is much evidence from those articles that ISIS is operating on a large scale in Yemen. I know the articles stated ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks but there was no evidence showing they did. I'm just going from the article but it said they were al Queda style attacks and even the Houthis said it was al Queda that perpetrated the attacks against them.

 

The US would be supporting the ousted government because we are allies of the Saudis and they support the ousted government.

Fwiw the Houthis have said one of their issues was that the previous government was not doing enough to fight al Queda. I don't if this is just lip service to the US but it is something they stated.

Also I don't really know what a terrorist haven is. The terrorist activity directed against the US and West persists because of our constant interference and our almost blind support of Israel against the Palestinians. We tried to be the puppeteer of the Middle East decades ago but instead we got caught up in our own strings and our government doesn't seem to recognize that.

 

The relationship is far more direct than that - we were very good friends with the Yemen government itself (as far as friends go in that part of the world). We're supporting Saudi in their fight because we want the previous government in power.

Understood - and if the Houthis were in charge, I think there's an argument there. But I think the alternatives we're looking at are the old government or civil war. I don't think there's much chance of the rebels actually consolidating power anytime soon in a way that actually leads to a peaceful, functional government.

By terrorist haven, I mean an area that has no strong central government to fight off terrorists in the country. Examples would be current day Iraq and Syria. They are basically lawless zones where terrorists can set up bases of operations and not be destroyed by the local military. Comparatively, Iraq prior to our invasion was not a terrorist haven, because Saddam Hussein would obliterate anyone not loyal to him. Terrorists only took root there in the post-invasion chaos. The same in Syria - ISIS took advantage of an already existing civil war and captured huge chunks of land because the central government had too many other problems. This is what the US now fears in Yemen, though it was already a bit of a terrorist base as it was.

 

Azerbaijan a shie country that does't have a good relation with neighbouring Iran.
alqiada & ISIS both allegedly Sunni ,their ultimate enemy is the Sunni's Saudis.
houthies are Yazidi's Shiea which is closer to Sunnies and the 12th Shiea dont consider Yazdies as a Shiea

 

You don't get it. US foreign policy is in the region is guided by its crazy subordination to the goals of Saudi Arabia (oil) and Israel (for God knows what reason. The Lobby?)

.