Porozumienie USA-Iran?

Prrivan

Oficjalnie obie strony w dalszym ciągu szczerzą kły i napinają muskuły w swoją stronę.
A pod stołem trwa przyjazny wanking... Laughing

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KB07Df01.html

Cytat:

Iran and the US: United over Afghanistan?
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - The annual Munich Security Conference, which brings together a dozen world leaders and about 50 top diplomats and defense officials, starts on Friday for the 45th time with one item paramount on its agenda: the United States-led world order, given the troubles in Afghanistan and Iraq and the ongoing impasse with Iran.

The US has sent a high-ranking delegation led by Vice President Joe Biden and the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrook. They are expected to seek informal dialogue with Iran, represented by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and parliament speaker Ali Larijani.

This contact on the event's sidelines will likely focus on the Iranian role in Iraq and the need for Tehran's cooperation over
Iran and the US: United over Afghanistan?
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - The annual Munich Security Conference, which brings together a dozen world leaders and about 50 top diplomats and defense officials, starts on Friday for the 45th time with one item paramount on its agenda: the United States-led world order, given the troubles in Afghanistan and Iraq and the ongoing impasse with Iran.

The US has sent a high-ranking delegation led by Vice President Joe Biden and the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrook. They are expected to seek informal dialogue with Iran, represented by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and parliament speaker Ali Larijani.

This contact on the event's sidelines will likely focus on the Iranian role in Iraq and the need for Tehran's cooperation over

Afghanistan, especially in allowing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) non-military supply lines to pass through the Iranian port of Chabahar on the way to Afghanistan.

This has become a crisis point for NATO, given that the Taliban have severely disrupted its conveys as they pass through the Khyber Pass in Pakistan and elsewhere. In the latest incident, the Taliban this week blew up a bridge on the Peshawar-Torkham Road and NATO supplies are expected to be crippled for at least 10 days.

With about 80% of NATO's supplies going through Pakistan, and with an additional 30,000 US troops to be pumped into Afghanistan, it is crucial that these supply lines be protected, or routed elsewhere.

Although NATO has struck deals with some Central Asian republics and Russia for non-military supplies to pass through their territory, these routes are much longer and more expensive, leaving NATO with no choice but to negotiate with Iran.

Gilles Dorronsoro, a noted expert on Afghanistan and Turkey who has worked in both countries for over 20 years, commented, "The Taliban have been able to adapt very quickly to allied tactics. Their learning curve is good, and they have the psychological momentum," he wrote in a Carnegie Policy Briefing, "Focus and Exit: An Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War".

"The situation in 2009 is probably going to deteriorate, but the results of any increase in troop numbers will be difficult to assess before the summer of 2010. In the event of failure, the US administration will have very few options left, because sending another 30,000 troops would present a political challenge. This is why it is especially important to concentrate attention on areas where the troops can make a real difference (ie, Kabul and not Helmand), allowing the allies to build sustainable Afghan institutions and eventually withdraw their military forces."

Dorronsoro argues that the international community needs to concentrate on creating the stability necessary for troop withdrawal.

United States efforts to make progress in Afghanistan could to a large extent depend on what happens in two of its key allies - Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

A report by Simon Henderson for the think-tank The Washington Institute reveals an imbroglio within Saudi Arabia and speculates that given the serious ill health of Crown Prince Sultan and the deteriorating health of King Abdullah, the next few months could pose a serious challenge for American policy makers.

"After months of speculation about the health of the designated successor to King Abdullah, Crown Prince Sultan, Saudi officials are now openly talking about Sultan's ill health. The kingdom - a close US ally, the self-professed leader of the Islamic world, the world's largest oil exporter, and most recently the much-needed source of financial capital for the world's struggling economy - is heading for a period of changing leadership. The identities of the future kings, however, are so far unknown and largely unpredictable," Henderson observed.

Henderson discusses in detail the complexities involved in the choice of the next crown prince and the possibility of serious unrest in the royal family which could reduce its capability to support American designs in the region.

"Washington hopes to avoid an internal Saudi royal dispute ... Riyadh will be allergic to external interference or advice on such matters, but the outcomes of the probable transitions in the next few months will be of intense interest to the United States and much of the world," Henderson, a Baker fellow and director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at the Washington Institute, concluded.

In Pakistan, meanwhile, the situation in the most important non-NATO US ally in the "war on terror" is as unstable.

North-West Frontier Province, bordering Afghanistan, is now virtually under the control of the Taliban, which has diminished the Pakistan military's capability to support the US efforts against militancy.

The military is unable to prevent incidents such as the blowing up of the bridge in Khyber Agency, and the Taliban have pinned down troops on several fronts. On American pressure, Pakistan engaged militants in Bajaur and Mohmand agencies, but its troops have been unable to make any headway amid unabated guerrilla attacks.

The Taliban recently increased their activities in the Swat Valley - only three hours' drive from the capital Islamabad - and apart from a few areas they have seized the entire valley.

The situation could deteriorate in the coming weeks as opposition parties have announced a "long march" against the government on March 9 and there are growing reports of differences between Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani and President Asif Ali Zardari that could hamstring the government.

A conflict is also emerging between US President Barack Obama and the US military leadership. "The struggle reflects a fundamental choice between strategic withdrawal from Iraq and an attempt to prolong the US military presence in the country beyond 2011," noted investigative US journalist Gareth Porter in article for Le Monde Diplomatique. (See also Obama not bowing to top brass, yet Asia Times Online, February 4, 2009.)

Obama insisted that he would not adjust his schedule to bring it into line with the recommendations of General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq and Afghanistan. "The president's job," said Obama, "is to tell the generals what their mission is."

These are some the developments that will be considered at the Munich meet. In anticipation of its worst year in Afghanistan since the Taliban were ousted in 2001, it is possible that the Americans will abdicate much of their interest in Iraq in favor of the Iranians, and in return, Tehran will allow passage to NATO's non-military supplies through Chabahar port.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

Wystarczyło znaleźć wspólny cel i teren z którego zyski można podzielić między siebie...i od razu robi się miło.Ech,money makes the world go round.

forrest_

Dziwna sprawa ja mam takie info:

Cytat:

Netanyahu 'will coax Obama into Iran war'

The Israeli prime ministerial frontrunner will win a US blessing to enter war with Iran, says a source familiar with US Mideast policies.

Aaron David Miller, the US State Department's top analyst in the 1980s, said Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu will be able to convince President Barack Obama that a military attack is the only solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.

"The Israelis will be pushing [Washington] to ensure that Iran never gets to that point and failing that, they will consider a military strike," Reuters quoted Miller -- who is a former US Middle East peace negotiator and is currently an analyst at the Woodrow Wilson Center -- as saying late Friday.

"It need not be conclusive or threatening, but it will be very serious and ... scare the daylights out of the president that unless the international community mobilizes to address the situation, the Israelis will," he said.

Tel Aviv accuses Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of having plans to develop nuclear weaponry.

Tehran, however, insists that it enriches uranium for peaceful purposes and that it has the right to the technology already in the hands of many others.

Israeli leaders, who have in their possession the sole nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, have intensified their go-to-war rhetoric against Iran in the run-up to Tel Aviv's elections set for February 10.

Israeli election frontrunner Benjamin Netanyahu said last week that his first mission, if elected prime minister, would be to "thwart the Iranian threat" once and for all.

"[Iran] will not be armed with a nuclear weapon… It includes everything that is necessary to make this statement come true," warned the leading candidate for the prime minister post.

Israeli legislator and weapons expert Isaac Ben-Israel, meanwhile, claimed that Tel Aviv has only a year to pull off a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, asserting that any attack would only delay, rather than sabotage, Iranian breakthroughs in nuclear technology development.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has also stressed that possible Washington-Tehran talks "should be kept short and followed by readiness to take action".

British strategist Mark Fitzpatrick, however, has asserted that Israeli military action against Iran was "a significant possibility, but not a probability".

"That point will probably be some time towards the end of this year," said the senior fellow for non-proliferation at London's Institute for Strategic Studies, adding that Israel should consider the negative consequences before it makes any move.

źródło: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=84974&sectionid=351020101
_________________
13:13 13.09.1979 Caulbearer Smile

Unos nacen con estrella y otros nacen estrellados
******* Ad astra per aspera ******
.............! Semper paratus !.............

Kefir

Odwrocenie uwagi i sprzeczne informacje - cos sie zdarzy i to predko.... oczy szeroko otwarte!
_________________
***Starość we wszystko wierzy. Wiek średni we wszystko wątpi. Młodość wszystko wie***
Oscar Wilde

WZBG

Cytat:

WSJ: USA tajnie wysłały do Iranu samolot z 400 mln dolarów, aby uratować Amerykanów 03.08.2016

Fotolia/ Eyetronic

Administracja obecnego prezydenta USA Baracka Obamy w styczniu tajnie wysłała do Iranu samolot z gotówką w walucie różnych państw na łączną kwotę około 400 mln dolarów - podaje Wall Street Journal.

Zdaniem szeregu źródeł, może to być związane z uwolnieniem w styczniu w Iranie czterech amerykańskich obywateli.

Jak podkreśla periodyk, drewniane palety załadowane euro, frankami szwajcarskimi i inną walutą zostały umieszczone w samolocie transportowym bez oznakowania. Pieniądze udostępniły szwajcarskie i holenderskie banki. Wypłatę zrealizowano w walucie zagranicznej, ponieważ operacje dolarowe między Teheranem i Waszyngtonem są objęte zakazem.

Wcześniej irańskie media poinformowały, że przedstawiciele Ministerstwa Obrony kraju potraktowali wypłatę tak dużej kwoty jako okup.
Jednocześnie według danych Wall Street Journal, amerykańscy urzędnicy wykluczają związek między przekazaniem pieniędzy a uwolnieniem więźniów.

Według oficjalnej wersji, wysłane pieniądze stanowiły pierwszą transzę kwoty w wysokości 1,7 mld dolarów, którą USA miały zapłacić Teheranowi w ramach uregulowania sporu dotyczącego zerwanego w 1979 roku kontraktu na dostawę broni.

W styczniu Iran uwolnił z więzienia czterech Amerykanów — dziennikarza Jasona Rezaiana, kaznodzieję Saeeda Abediniego, wojskowego Amira Hekmatiego oraz Nosratollaha Hospaui — oraz poinformował o uwolnieniu zatrzymanego w Teheranie kilka miesięcy temu studenta z USA.
Amerykańskie władze w odpowiedzi na to uwolniły siedmiu Irańczyków, sześciu z których ma podwójne obywatelstwo. Ponadto Waszyngton cofnął przekazane Interpolowi wnioski o aresztowanie i oczyścił z zarzutów 14 obywateli Iranu, wnioski o ekstradycję których były oceniane jako mało prawdopodobne.

http://pl.sputniknews.com/swiat/20160803/3621908/USA-Iran-pieniadze-okup.html