The Clerics are not any different from Western Clerics although the Western women are not forced to cover their faces but that can be arranged if Western men comply with Islamic Idiots.

One could well ask what policies, over the last century, initially, crucially, and then repeatedly, led to the destabilisation of the region, the author, however, does not ask this question.

Given the intrinsic instability of the region, a sensible starting point might be to think of a course of action that has the least risk of flaring up tensions (political, ethnic, or otherwise). I would encourage the author of this article and his readers to consider this most basic of starting points.

Also, it would be useful if the author provided suggestions for possible alternative courses of action to those currently being pursued (i.e. beginning to negotiate with Iran on relatively equal terms, instead of belittling its interests).

Does the author not think that Israel and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenals are of any cause for concern? Where did they get the financial and political backing to build up such arsenals? Where does Iran rank in the list of countries that have engaged in an “imperial march across the region”? What triggers could we factor in for Iran’s support for terrorist groups across the region? How does supporting retail terror and giving financial/political backing to repressive governments compare with support for wholesale terror and outright conventional military aggression? What are the criteria used by the author to decide what he should write about in his articles?

Surely it is very easy to point to any one entity in the region and cry foul. One could argue that every actor (state and non-state) has blood on their hands in the Middle East. There is little point even in comparing who has more blood on their hands than everyone else. What honest and serious politically conscientious people should do, in my opinion, is look at the terror and suffering that they, as citizens, are responsible for, and stop contributing to it.

Good post.

This is Iraq. A country ruled by a vicious dictator for decades (supported by the west), then suffered deadly western sanctions, then experienced a brutal coalition occupation, then suffered a de facto civil war and is now being invaded by ISIS sadists. The idea that any group of Iraqis fighting in Iraq in this context is going to have the Geneva convention for human rights at the forefront of their mind, is a bit naïve. That doesn’t mean we do not challenge war crimes and make it clear that we think it’s wrong. But the idea Shia fighters aren’t going to go after people who provided a social base of support for saddam and ISIS is odd. Of course that it has often been indiscriminate or collective punishment is totally wrong. And Iran consistently calls for these elements to be reigned in. Iran has no interest in stoking sectarian tensions when it is trying to position itself as leader of the Muslim world. But collective punishment and punishment without trial in this context isn’t actually the same as massacring people the way Isis do. The Shia militias are committing the same transgressions other Iraqi groups do, from the Kurds to the Sunni Arabs.

2) Iran Supports ISIS
I mean this is just ridiculous. Iran buries soldiers every month at least killed by ISIS. The defector mentioned in the article met up with an ‘opposition group’ in Paris that itself is accused of war crimes. It is a cult that psychologically tortures its members and was accused of helping saddam commit genocide against the Kurds. Not a great point to be making then!

3) Assad
The writer doesn’t seem to understand how Assad can be secular and sectarian. His ideology is secular, but his survival strategy uses sectarianism because it is politically expedient. Very basic observation. Iran supports Assad because Syria has been a rare ally for a long time. When Iraq invaded Iran, supported by the west, Syria was the only Arab country to support Iran. That support meant a lot when you lost over half a million young kids in that war. Now Iranian involvement in Syria has been counterproductive. Far better would have been to come out in support of a negotiated settlement at the beginning. The crimes of Assad are many and Iran is thoroughly complicit. But they defended Syria because it’s an ally and possibly also a stepping stone for an attack on Iran. Not out of some sort of Shia religious fervour.

4) Iranian domestic politics

The impact of a nuclear deal on the domestic scene in Iran would be a huge victory for moderates and reformists and a huge blow to hardliners and conservatives of all stripes. That’s why it’s those hardline groups who are trying to scupper a nuclear deal. It’s also those hardline groups who control iran’s foreign policy and military action in the Middle East! A nuclear deal that included and end to sanctions would be a direct blow to the those pulling jeans political and military strings in Iraq and Syria.

lllllllllllllllllllllllll

llllllllllllllllllllllllll