Search the Community

US president say: https://medium.com/@WhiteHouse/president-obama-s-2016-state-of-the-union-address-7c06300f9726#.fx5ga6lgs But later... Two US military ships surrender to Iranian navy. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/12/us-sailors-boats-held-by-iran-in-persian-gulf.html Do US really so stronk?

The recent development in Yemen (what?!), threaten to devolve into a wider regional conflagration between the Shiite Iran and the allied militant Houthis, and the Sunni coalition. For more than 30 years, the Sunni states have been engaged in a "cold war" with Iran for power and influence in the Middle East. In recent years they watched Iran spreading its influence through Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and now Yemen, as well as exploiting its near nuclear status to further expand its sphere of influence. Until now? Following the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels storming the Yemeni port city of Aden. (strategic location near the mouth of the strait, think Oman and Iran) Saudi led, and backed by Egypt and Turkey, coalition of ten states has united over the issue in Yemen, in what will likely prove as testing ground for a united front against Iran and terrorist movements tearing the region apart. What do you guys think on this recent development, the Sunni Shiia issues at large and the state of the region? EDIT: Map: Also: Yemen Intervention Highlights a New Generation of Saudi Leaders and a New Foreign Policy Erdogan: "Iran has to change its view. It has to withdraw any forces, whatever it has in Yemen, as well as Syria and Iraq and respect their territorial integrity."

So, apparently Israel's president Netanyahu recently spoke in Congress about how he wants Obama's nuclear talks with Iran to stop. Here's the video: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4501507/netanyahu-warns-congress-iran The speech has been boycotted by about 60 Democrats, for various reasons, the most common reason being that Netanyahu was invited by congressional Republicans in order to torpedo the President's foreign policy. The second reason is that people suspect that Netanyahu merely wanted to do this to strengthen his image at home, in advance of the Israeli legislative elections due in two weeks. My opinion is that since the effort to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear technology has already failed, he's doing this in advance in order to save face later and be able to say that he did what he could when this fact sinks in. It's interesting that Netanyahu states no alternative to the talks. Iran has already achieved civilian nuclear power, and constructed enrichment facilities. They have had a research reactor (since 1967, supplied by the US), one (small) operational heavy water reactor, one light water reactor on the commercial grid, with two more light water and one heavy water reactor planned. They have been fully assisted by Russia in starting up their light water reactor. So the Republicans who say "Their nuclear program must be stopped" (Jeb Bush) and "Obama Admin's negotiations w/ Iran have been a failure. We must stand united with Israel to prevent a nuclear Iran!" (Ted Cruz) are being extremely insincere, since it's not about "stopping" some future leap of technology but dismantling existing, operational reactors and enrichment facilities which have been operational since 2010. There is fundamentally speaking no alternative to talks, there is nothing short of war at this point which could possibly stop the Iranian nuclear programme. The alternative the Republicans speak of might be to just wait, doing nothing, but that clearly won't prevent Iran from anything, as we've seen - there's no point in keeping sanctions on for nothing (or is that exactly what the Republicans think?). Meanwhile, both the Israeli Mossad and CIA are clear on the point that there is nothing which points towards there being a military Iranian nuclear programme. Now, let's not confuse that with the possibility of Iran starting a military nuclear weapons programme in the future. With what we know they have now, Iran might have a rudimentary nuclear bomb (without delivery system) within one year. Clearly the answer is a deal which lets the IAEA inspect what they are doing. So let's keep track of, and discuss, what will come out of this. And how would things have looked with a Republican president? Since Iran has been getting nuclear weapons next year every year since the 1990s, we can expect this to be a relevant question also after 2016.

Obviously, Rouhani has taken up a tough job, but most of the media I read regards him as a moderate, and it seems like good news. I'm pleased for all the smart educated Iranians I've met over the years. They really deserved better than Ahmedinejad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22168202 I know we often talk about Iran as a nuclear tipped fruitbat nightmare. HOWEVER, a disaster like this is pure humanity vs Mother Nature in my book. Dozens may have died, and thousands willl have have had their homes wrecked. A no brainer to say thoughts with them, really. But I figured it'd do no harm to say it.