" The Dinar Daily ", Wednesday, 4 December 2013
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: " The Dinar Daily ", Wednesday, 4 December 2013


    
  1. #1

    " The Dinar Daily ", Wednesday, 4 December 2013

    The Iraqi government and the Kurdistan region approaching an agreement on the sharing of oil revenues

    04-12-2013 | (Voice of Iraq)

    Baghdad: Hamza Mustafa
    Despite the Iraqi government sought to throw the ball in the stadiums Turkish and Kurdish on the issue of export of oil from the Kurdistan region through a special tube, the recriminations still continuing between the two parties.
    Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz, who entered into an agreement with Baghdad necessary government not to conclude any agreement with the Kurdistan Regional Government on the export of oil without the knowledge of the Iraqi government, announced Erbil yesterday that «the Kurdistan region of Iraq has come to an agreement on energy with the central government in Baghdad this month ». Yildiz, who tells him a member of the Iraqi parliament from the Kurdistan Alliance Chuan Mohamed Taha told the «Middle East» that «the beginning of the Iraqi constitution is much better than some of our representatives who make statements without the knowledge of what he says the Constitution in this regard», tried to re-throw the ball in the stadiums government in Baghdad and the Kurds in Irbil in an attempt to be Turkey's share net agreement of the parties, without a tendency to party at the expense of another.
    It was Iraq, and according to the announcement «Middle East» Faisal Abdullah, director of the Office of Hussein al-Shahristani, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister for Energy Affairs, has refused to «a proposal Turkey to form a tripartite committee to resolve the problem of the agreement between Ankara and Baghdad and Erbil», stressing that «the Iraqi government agrees to form a Iraqi bilateral committee - comprising representatives of the Turkish Kurdistan region ».
    For his part, stressed the official spokesman for the Iraqi Oil Ministry, Assem Jihad told «Middle East» that «Iraq informed the Turkish side agreed to export any quantity of oil from the Kurdistan region, but according to the criteria approved by the Federal Ministry of Oil and cross-company (SOMO) exclusively ». In response to a question about comments by Turkish minister in Erbil yesterday on expectation reach Baghdad and Erbil agreement on oil during this month, Jihad said that «any agreement can not be conducted without taking into consideration the following key points;: first the approval of the central government. Secondly supervision Company (SOMO). And thirdly that the quantity to be known through the counters and clear and go revenue to the Development Fund for Iraq and not to fund Turkish government, because of Iraq's international obligations even if it came out of Chapter VII », pointing out that« the proportion of these funds are deducted for the Kuwait and some of the creditors, and the remaining goes to the central treasury and then distributed equally according to the constitution ».
    In response to a question on the nature of the representation of the Kurdistan region in the bilateral committee approved after Baghdad's refusal of the proposed Turkish formation of a tripartite committee, Jihad said that «the Commission could include technical part of the Government of the Territory is not more than that», adding that «the central government will not give up for any of these standards, under any circumstances, which have been informed of the Turkish side », warning at the same time that« any order contrary to what was agreed upon with the Turkish side, it will be the government's last position, which was expressed by Mr. Shahristani, both in terms of the Turks or brothers in the Kurdistan region ».
    But Iraqi Oil Minister Abdul-Karim and coffee seemed more lenient in his statements in Vienna on this subject; when he said, according to the agency «Reuters», that «there are no issues», adding that «technical discussions trilogy» will take place within a few days to agree on the details on the sharing of oil revenues with the Kurds.
    For his part, said Chuan Mohamed Taha, a member of the Iraqi parliament from the Kurdistan Alliance bloc, told the «Middle East» that «the statements we've heard lately from some executives and some MPs from the State of Law Coalition (led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki) exclusively, but it is an attempt to play on the tendon elections and gain early votes even if at the expense of the national interest of the Iraqi people ». Taha said that «what we now fear is that going to undo the democratic process, especially with the continued interpretation of the Constitution in accordance with what he wants one party to the extent where they are have called the central government, while the name the federal government, because there are territories federal and provinces without a centralized management», He pointed out that «there is a determination by the government not to enact a law of oil and gas in order to keep interpret the Constitution as they wish, not to mention as a double standard in the framework of the laws, as everything related to the economic aspect of using the laws of the former regime, while the political side used their own laws ablation and exclusion ».
    In response to a question on the Turkish minister assured Ptousel Baghdad and Erbil to oil deal this month, Taha said that «the Turkish minister knows the constitution better than many of the House of Representatives. As I would like to point out that they were accuse us off oil exports and cause great losses to the budget, and here are the same (in reference to al-Shahristani, and members of the state law) stands against the export of oil and non-payment of dues international oil companies ».
    Middle East

    http://translate.googleusercontent.c...#ixzz2mTlGzJcu



  2. #2
    Maliki's party will continue to exploit the state in the election campaign and will not be deterred by jail sentences

    04-12-2013 | (Voice of Iraq)

     Baghdad / Wael grace
    The whole deputies from different blocks on the difficulty of preventing the "party of power" from the exploitation of the country's prospects for the purposes of the election campaign, and stressed that despite the fact that the constitution and the electoral law prohibits it, but influential in government is stronger than any supervisory authority for their actions, arguing that the party Authority takes advantage of the absence of a law for the parties reveal their sources of funding, said that while the candidates of the "party of power" have golden opportunities for the use of the possibilities of government institutions for advertising, while not preparing those opportunities parties away from power.
    The vice president of the Kurdistan Alliance bloc in the House of Representatives Mohsen al-Sadoun said in a statement to the "long" that "voters tested in five experiments election since 2005, and they are now differentiate between donations and gifts before the election, and the personalities and entities that operate for the benefit of the citizen and the country."
    He said al-Sadoun, "We count on the awareness of the voter, which began discovers personalities that promote bubbles election, soon expire after the end of the ballot," calling on the Iraqi voters to "choose personalities and entities that can be out of the country from the predicament of security, political and economic."
    He said Al-Saadoun said that "the election law prohibits the use of" public money "in promotion of the propaganda campaign, but it can not be any party to prevent a candidate from the use of resources of the state in the election," he said, adding that the voter is the only standard that can through his experiences prior to distinguish between candidate which seeks only to gain power and those who want to serve Iraq.
    Meanwhile, a MP from the Iraqi white Kadhim al-Shammari said the new election law in 2014, stipulates prison sentences and fines on each of the exploits of public funds or state resources for the benefit of the election, pointing out that in practice can not be separated from political office and government and not to involve him in the election campaign .
    He adds Shammari told the "long" yesterday that "the minister, who nominates the election, do not expect him while residing festival promotional elections, that does not use cars ministry, and propellants, and the guards in the propaganda," adding that talk about the dimensions of the country's prospects for election, "ordered difficult to achieve, "in the absence of regulatory institutions true.
    Al-Shammari said that the Audit Court and the Electoral Commission "has become politicized," and helpless in front of the practices of the authority for the use of state resources for the benefit of the electoral promo, calling on the media and civil society organizations to take their role in the detection of such practices.
    Refers Shammari that the use of the country's prospects in the election, is an encroachment on the constitution, which states that "Iraqis are equal," Vwazzra who intend to run in the election will be available to them a golden opportunity to use the money ministries and potential for electoral propaganda, while candidates "are far off from power," will be deprived of that opportunity.
    For his part, the MP said the bloc Rafidain parliamentary Imad John there was "no practical mechanism to prevent the government and the ruling party of using the budget, and public money in the election campaign," he said in a statement to the "long" yesterday that "the moral obligation and political blocs competing, is an inhibitor The only entities competing in front of not using public money and state resources in the election campaign. "
    He noted that "the party or political bloc that allow itself to use the money the state for the benefit of the election, would open the way for the party the other to act in the same way, and the result is the use of people's money and the budget for the benefit of certain groups, transforming the citizen to the bargaining election."
    Emphasizes Christian lawmaker that the use of political money to win votes, will lead to change the political reality, with a letter the election results in favor of the "Party of the powerful, and which possesses the potential of the state and its institutions," he said, adding that prevent parties from using state resources is one of the most dangerous colors combat "political and financial corruption "It is difficult to control, especially when the legal cover, such as the distribution of plots to citizens.
    Meanwhile, a senior member of the Democratic Movement Jassim Hilfi "long" that "the ruling party resorted and will resort to the use of public money and resources of the state in the election campaign," he said, adding that such practices are "illegal" and falsification of the will of the voter. "
    He added Hilfi told the "long" yesterday that "the absence of awareness of voter launch promises and distribution of land, contrary to section fair participation in the elections," stressing that "party of power" benefited from the absence of a law for the parties reveals money each party, or a law regulating the electoral propaganda .
    Explains Hilfi election law prohibits the use of public money and religious symbols in the elections, but he says there was "no deterrent to prevent parties from such practices," adding that such propaganda "false", because the parties in power has had the money ten years ago and did not achieve anything , pointing out that Iraq's budget since 2003, and even today has reached 750 billion dollars, a huge sum that could build a developed country, but I went to the "pockets of corrupt", still stealing public money to stay in power through elections.

    http://translate.googleusercontent.c...#ixzz2mTmTyNDv

  3. #3
    Iraq declares its support for the government of Kurdistan oil export to Turkey

    03-12-2013 | (Voice of Iraq)

    Twilight News

    She Iraqi List led by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, on Tuesday, supported by the export of oil from the Kurdistan Regional Government to Turkey.

    A member of the Iraqi Ziad worldwide abolition in an interview with "Twilight News", that "there is no harm from the Kurdistan oil export if the imports back to the central treasury."

    He said the worldwide abolition, "the House of Representatives is currently bear what is happening from the differences between the non-approval of the oil law, which joins the export of oil and oil transactions and reach agreement on oil transactions between the center and the region."

    Barzani visited Turkey last week which resulted in leaks, according to Turkish media and universal for the two sides signed agreements for export, without being announced in order to avoid rejecting the reactions of Baghdad.

    It is what actually happened when stressed by Deputy Prime Minister for Energy Hussain al-Shahristani said Iraq agreed with Turkey not to export oil through the pipeline until after the approval of the new Baghdad on it.

    Baghdad says it is her right to manage the oil wealth ranging from contract to develop oil fields with foreign companies access to export.

    However, the Kurdistan Region has repeatedly stressed that the Constitution allows him to develop the oil fields and concluded dozens of contracts with international energy companies, including Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.

    The Committee announced that the parliamentary oil and energy in the earlier period, the few remaining life of the current parliamentary session is not enough to hold understandings lead to approval of oil and gas law, asserting that the law left to the next session.

    The Commission on oil and energy parliamentary has three drafts of projects oil and gas law, but all of these drafts are not acceptable to the political parties in Parliament.

    http://translate.googleusercontent.c...#ixzz2mTnBxEtS

  4. #4
    Iraqi politicians fail to convince voters change is possible

    No one in Iraq is satisfied with the country’s situation. The term “change” is on everyone’s lips, from the top of the ruling pyramid to the ordinary man in the street.

    Although the goals of change in Iraq are not quite clear, everyone agrees that change can only be brought about through elections.

    The low number of voters who showed up to update their records in preparation for the legislative elections in April 2014 is worrisome and raises questions about the will for change. The figures leaked from the Electoral Commission indicate that fewer than 500,000 people updated their records days before the expiration of the statutory period.

    Even though leaders such as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and religious leader Muqtada al-Sadr called on voters to update their records, this failed to raise the participation rates to numbers significant enough to make an impact.

    This raises concerns of political leaders such as Ethel Nujaifi, the governor of Mosul, who said that only 4% of Mosul’s Arabs showed up to update their records.

    This was accompanied by accusations directed at the Electoral Commission about failing to urge citizens to update their records.

    For its part, the commission defended its position and confirmed that it has assigned mobile teams to update people’s records on the ground.

    This entire controversy, however, does not change the reality of the situation. The desire to bring about change is not accompanied by practical steps, and this applies to the Iraqi political quarters, but most importantly to the voters who feel frustrated by the prolonged political and economic deficits plaguing their country.

    The real risk currently facing the political life in Iraq is wide popular despair as far as change through elections is concerned. If the elections continue to be boycotted and the people continue to abstain from participating in political life, politicians may find themselves isolated from the street.

    These political circles, including the government, the opposition and the old and new political forces, have failed to offer tangible evidence for the voters about reform. However, the preoccupation with political conflicts and the use of all kinds of weapons in the mutual attempts to make the other lose — while pushing the country into a deep pit of corruption, suspicion and distrust — kept more voters from contributing to change through the ballot box.

    The broken bridges between the political quarters and the voters; between the government, parliament and political blocs; between the presidency, the government and parliament; and between all of the institutions of the Iraqi state warn of a serious danger. Moreover, bridging this gap needs a vision that everyone agrees upon, along with national grounds and principles.

    The public’s confidence cannot be restored through statements made on TV urging voters to participate in the elections, and it is no longer useful to use sectarian and ethnic fears to persuade the people to bear the risks and threats of terrorist forces and head again to the polls. Iraq needs real proof from its leaders about their desire for change. It also needs sacrifices and compromises to achieve security and move the country forward.

    Without great sacrifices, voters will never feel the sincerity of their politicians — who have been continuously reproducing themselves since 2003 — and they will gradually keep their distance from the polls, until the elections start lacking the legitimacy of the street.

    No one wants to see such a disastrous situation. Avoiding it, however, does not happen through slogans and petitions, but through persistent action that will eventually restore confidence.

    Mustafa al-Kadhimi

    Columnist,Iraq Pulse

    Mustafa al-Kadhimi is an Iraqi writer specializing in defense of democracy. He has extensive experience in documenting testimony and archiving documentaries associated with repressive practices.

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz2mU451Dwu

  5. #5
    Iraqi politicians fail to convince voters change is possible

    No one in Iraq is satisfied with the country’s situation. The term “change” is on everyone’s lips, from the top of the ruling pyramid to the ordinary man in the street.

    Although the goals of change in Iraq are not quite clear, everyone agrees that change can only be brought about through elections.

    The low number of voters who showed up to update their records in preparation for the legislative elections in April 2014 is worrisome and raises questions about the will for change. The figures leaked from the Electoral Commission indicate that fewer than 500,000 people updated their records days before the expiration of the statutory period.

    Even though leaders such as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and religious leader Muqtada al-Sadr called on voters to update their records, this failed to raise the participation rates to numbers significant enough to make an impact.

    This raises concerns of political leaders such as Ethel Nujaifi, the governor of Mosul, who said that only 4% of Mosul’s Arabs showed up to update their records.

    This was accompanied by accusations directed at the Electoral Commission about failing to urge citizens to update their records.

    For its part, the commission defended its position and confirmed that it has assigned mobile teams to update people’s records on the ground.

    This entire controversy, however, does not change the reality of the situation. The desire to bring about change is not accompanied by practical steps, and this applies to the Iraqi political quarters, but most importantly to the voters who feel frustrated by the prolonged political and economic deficits plaguing their country.

    The real risk currently facing the political life in Iraq is wide popular despair as far as change through elections is concerned. If the elections continue to be boycotted and the people continue to abstain from participating in political life, politicians may find themselves isolated from the street.

    These political circles, including the government, the opposition and the old and new political forces, have failed to offer tangible evidence for the voters about reform. However, the preoccupation with political conflicts and the use of all kinds of weapons in the mutual attempts to make the other lose — while pushing the country into a deep pit of corruption, suspicion and distrust — kept more voters from contributing to change through the ballot box.

    The broken bridges between the political quarters and the voters; between the government, parliament and political blocs; between the presidency, the government and parliament; and between all of the institutions of the Iraqi state warn of a serious danger. Moreover, bridging this gap needs a vision that everyone agrees upon, along with national grounds and principles.

    The public’s confidence cannot be restored through statements made on TV urging voters to participate in the elections, and it is no longer useful to use sectarian and ethnic fears to persuade the people to bear the risks and threats of terrorist forces and head again to the polls. Iraq needs real proof from its leaders about their desire for change. It also needs sacrifices and compromises to achieve security and move the country forward.

    Without great sacrifices, voters will never feel the sincerity of their politicians — who have been continuously reproducing themselves since 2003 — and they will gradually keep their distance from the polls, until the elections start lacking the legitimacy of the street.

    No one wants to see such a disastrous situation. Avoiding it, however, does not happen through slogans and petitions, but through persistent action that will eventually restore confidence.

    Mustafa al-Kadhimi

    Columnist,Iraq Pulse

    Mustafa al-Kadhimi is an Iraqi writer specializing in defense of democracy. He has extensive experience in documenting testimony and archiving documentaries associated with repressive practices.

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz2mU451Dwu

  6. #6
    Iran nuclear deal may be start of new era in Persian Gulf

    Since 2003, uranium enrichment has remained at the heart of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program between Iran and world powers, particularly the United States. Iran has argued that enrichment is its “inalienable right” under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and that halting uranium enrichment is a “red line” that may not be crossed. Yet, the United States has opposed Iran’s position.

    On Nov. 24, following four days of marathon talks, Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) finally inked the Geneva interim deal as the preamble to reaching a long-term, comprehensive solution. Shortly thereafter, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said at a news conference that “in two distinct places” there is “a very clear reference to the fact that the Iranian enrichment program will continue and will be a part of any agreement now and in the future.” Zarif was alluding to text in the Joint Plan of Action that states the final deal will involve “a mutually defined enrichment program with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the program.”

    John Kerry’s response in an interview with ABC News was, “No. There is no right to enrich. We do not recognize a right to enrich. It is clear, in the — in the NPT, in the non-proliferation treaty, it's very, very clear that there is no right to enrich.” Contrary to the assertion made by Wendy Sherman, the lead US negotiator, that this “has always been the US position,” Kerry — while serving as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee four years ago — offered a completely different understanding of the NPT. In an interview with the Financial Times, Kerry said with regard to Iran’s rights as a signatory of the NPT:

    “The Bush administration [argument of] no enrichment was ridiculous … because it seemed so unreasonable to people. … It was bombastic diplomacy. It was wasted energy. It sort of hardened the lines, if you will. … They have a right to peaceful nuclear power and to enrichment in that purpose.”

    To confirm Kerry’s position, in 2010, Hillary Clinton, when she was secretary of state, told the BBC that a final deal could allow Iran to enrich. “They can enrich uranium at some future date once they have demonstrated that they can do so in a responsible manner in accordance with international obligations.”

    In any event, even though its limits remain to be negotiated and agreed upon, the inclusion of enrichment facilitated the realization of the Geneva deal, without which the world would have witnessed another disastrous failure of negotiations.

    The Geneva pact was a historic success because both Iran and the United States demonstrated that they have learned pivotal lessons from the past. The nonconciliatory, Cold War stance that they adopted toward each other during the last 34 years benefit the national interests and security of neither state. It is significantly momentous that Iran and the United States, after more than three decades, were able to conduct meaningful negotiations at the highest diplomatic level and bring a complex dispute to a mutually agreeable conclusion aimed at reaching a permanent solution “in less than one year.”

    The consequences of this unprecedented approach by both countries may reach beyond Iran’s nuclear issue, thus reshaping the geopolitics of the region. The Obama administration’s clear rejection of pressures by the lobbying of pro-Israel groups opposed to the deal and its supporters in Washington, as well as some Arab countries in the region, could be the dawn of a new era in US foreign policy toward the Middle East.

    Highlighting Obama’s determination to bring Iran’s nuclear crisis to an end at a news conference in Geneva, Kerry remarked that while some in Congress might seek to impose new sanctions on Iran, “The president obviously has a possibility of a veto.”

    The relationship between Iran and the United States should not necessarily be defined in the framework of a zero-sum game. Cooperation between the United States as a global power and Iran as a regional power may bring about stability from the east in Afghanistan to the west in Lebanon — which appears on the verge of falling into another civil war with the interference of some Arab countries.

    Salafi extremists and terrorists represent common adversaries for the United States, Iran and countries in the region and beyond. And both the United States and Iran require stability in the region to advance their national interests. Iran seeks to sell its oil and attract foreign investment for development, while the capitalist system — led by the United States — seeks to secure safe passage for oil in the region’s waters.

    Rather than distancing themselves from the United States by exacerbating their differences with Iran while the United States and Iran are striving to settle theirs, the countries in the region should embrace the move toward a new Middle East. The countries in the region could instead positively respond to Iran’s efforts at rapprochement with the United States, which are paramount in the Rouhani government’s near-term agenda. Detente between Iran and the United States may leave no choice but for this to occur. “Be assured that the nuclear deal is in favor of the stability and security of the region,” Zarif said in Kuwait on Dec. 1. In an official statement, Saudi Arabia viewed the agreement as a primary step toward a comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear issue provided it leads to a Middle East and Gulf region free of all weapons of mass destruction, and hoping that such a step will be followed by more important steps that lead to a guarantee of the right of all countries in the region to peacefully use nuclear energy.

    Soon after the Geneva nuclear deal, Iran declared its readiness to start a “new page” in relations with the Persian Gulf region. Last week, Tehran received the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) very warmly. Abdullah bin Zayed met President Hassan Rouhani as well as his Iranian counterpart Zarif during the first such trip by the UAE's foreign minister in years. On his first visit to a Persian Gulf Arab state that will also take him to Oman, Zarif arrived in Kuwait on Dec. 1. Zarif is also supposed to visit Riyadh soon. He may attend the Manama Dialogue in Bahrain on Dec. 7. This is the time for Tehran and Riyadh and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to talk to each other rather than about each other. “We look at Saudi Arabia as a very important and influential country in the region,” Zarif told reporters upon his arrival in Kuwait. With international support, it is the right time for Iran and Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the GCC to realize the 10-point plan building a “Regional Cooperation System in the Persian Gulf” for the purposes of removing hostilities, securing peace and stability in the region and beyond, fighting terrorism and extremism, realizing a weapons of mass destruction free zone in the Persian Gulf and the entire Middle East and more.

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz2mU54wezi

  7. #7
    Iran nuclear deal may be start of new era in Persian Gulf

    Since 2003, uranium enrichment has remained at the heart of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program between Iran and world powers, particularly the United States. Iran has argued that enrichment is its “inalienable right” under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and that halting uranium enrichment is a “red line” that may not be crossed. Yet, the United States has opposed Iran’s position.

    On Nov. 24, following four days of marathon talks, Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) finally inked the Geneva interim deal as the preamble to reaching a long-term, comprehensive solution. Shortly thereafter, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said at a news conference that “in two distinct places” there is “a very clear reference to the fact that the Iranian enrichment program will continue and will be a part of any agreement now and in the future.” Zarif was alluding to text in the Joint Plan of Action that states the final deal will involve “a mutually defined enrichment program with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the program.”

    John Kerry’s response in an interview with ABC News was, “No. There is no right to enrich. We do not recognize a right to enrich. It is clear, in the — in the NPT, in the non-proliferation treaty, it's very, very clear that there is no right to enrich.” Contrary to the assertion made by Wendy Sherman, the lead US negotiator, that this “has always been the US position,” Kerry — while serving as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee four years ago — offered a completely different understanding of the NPT. In an interview with the Financial Times, Kerry said with regard to Iran’s rights as a signatory of the NPT:

    “The Bush administration [argument of] no enrichment was ridiculous … because it seemed so unreasonable to people. … It was bombastic diplomacy. It was wasted energy. It sort of hardened the lines, if you will. … They have a right to peaceful nuclear power and to enrichment in that purpose.”

    To confirm Kerry’s position, in 2010, Hillary Clinton, when she was secretary of state, told the BBC that a final deal could allow Iran to enrich. “They can enrich uranium at some future date once they have demonstrated that they can do so in a responsible manner in accordance with international obligations.”

    In any event, even though its limits remain to be negotiated and agreed upon, the inclusion of enrichment facilitated the realization of the Geneva deal, without which the world would have witnessed another disastrous failure of negotiations.

    The Geneva pact was a historic success because both Iran and the United States demonstrated that they have learned pivotal lessons from the past. The nonconciliatory, Cold War stance that they adopted toward each other during the last 34 years benefit the national interests and security of neither state. It is significantly momentous that Iran and the United States, after more than three decades, were able to conduct meaningful negotiations at the highest diplomatic level and bring a complex dispute to a mutually agreeable conclusion aimed at reaching a permanent solution “in less than one year.”

    The consequences of this unprecedented approach by both countries may reach beyond Iran’s nuclear issue, thus reshaping the geopolitics of the region. The Obama administration’s clear rejection of pressures by the lobbying of pro-Israel groups opposed to the deal and its supporters in Washington, as well as some Arab countries in the region, could be the dawn of a new era in US foreign policy toward the Middle East.

    Highlighting Obama’s determination to bring Iran’s nuclear crisis to an end at a news conference in Geneva, Kerry remarked that while some in Congress might seek to impose new sanctions on Iran, “The president obviously has a possibility of a veto.”

    The relationship between Iran and the United States should not necessarily be defined in the framework of a zero-sum game. Cooperation between the United States as a global power and Iran as a regional power may bring about stability from the east in Afghanistan to the west in Lebanon — which appears on the verge of falling into another civil war with the interference of some Arab countries.

    Salafi extremists and terrorists represent common adversaries for the United States, Iran and countries in the region and beyond. And both the United States and Iran require stability in the region to advance their national interests. Iran seeks to sell its oil and attract foreign investment for development, while the capitalist system — led by the United States — seeks to secure safe passage for oil in the region’s waters.

    Rather than distancing themselves from the United States by exacerbating their differences with Iran while the United States and Iran are striving to settle theirs, the countries in the region should embrace the move toward a new Middle East. The countries in the region could instead positively respond to Iran’s efforts at rapprochement with the United States, which are paramount in the Rouhani government’s near-term agenda. Detente between Iran and the United States may leave no choice but for this to occur. “Be assured that the nuclear deal is in favor of the stability and security of the region,” Zarif said in Kuwait on Dec. 1. In an official statement, Saudi Arabia viewed the agreement as a primary step toward a comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear issue provided it leads to a Middle East and Gulf region free of all weapons of mass destruction, and hoping that such a step will be followed by more important steps that lead to a guarantee of the right of all countries in the region to peacefully use nuclear energy.

    Soon after the Geneva nuclear deal, Iran declared its readiness to start a “new page” in relations with the Persian Gulf region. Last week, Tehran received the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) very warmly. Abdullah bin Zayed met President Hassan Rouhani as well as his Iranian counterpart Zarif during the first such trip by the UAE's foreign minister in years. On his first visit to a Persian Gulf Arab state that will also take him to Oman, Zarif arrived in Kuwait on Dec. 1. Zarif is also supposed to visit Riyadh soon. He may attend the Manama Dialogue in Bahrain on Dec. 7. This is the time for Tehran and Riyadh and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to talk to each other rather than about each other. “We look at Saudi Arabia as a very important and influential country in the region,” Zarif told reporters upon his arrival in Kuwait. With international support, it is the right time for Iran and Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the GCC to realize the 10-point plan building a “Regional Cooperation System in the Persian Gulf” for the purposes of removing hostilities, securing peace and stability in the region and beyond, fighting terrorism and extremism, realizing a weapons of mass destruction free zone in the Persian Gulf and the entire Middle East and more.

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz2mU54wezi

  8. #8
    Sadr urges government to form security regiments from Tuz Khurmatu citizens

    Wednesday, 04 December 2013 09:44

    Najaf (AIN) –The head of the Sadr Trend, Muqtada al-Sadr, called to "Form security regiments from the citizens of Tuz Khurmatu district to protect it from the repeated terrorist attacks.

    In response to a question by one of his followers, Sadr said "The government must form the security regiments from the citizens of the district," calling "The citizens of the district to hold their responsibility."

    He urged "MPs to discuss this issue inside the parliament," noting that he ordered to open an office for his bloc in the district."

    http://www.alliraqnews.com/en/index....tical&Itemid=2

  9. #9
    Mutleg confirms Maliki's adherence to 3rd tem
    Wednesday, 04 December 2013 10:40

    Baghdad (AIN) –MP, Hamid al-Mutleg, of the Iraqiya Slate confirmed that adherence of the Premier, Nouri al-Maliki, to run third term in his post.

    He stated to AIN "We do not have concerns over Maliki's adherence to 3rd term in case his bloc lost in the upcoming elections."

    "His adherence to the 3rd term depends on the number of the seats that he gets in the upcoming parliament," he concluded.

    http://www.alliraqnews.com/en/index....tical&Itemid=2

  10. #10
    Maliki heads to Iran
    Wednesday, 04 December 2013 10:17

    Baghdad (AIN) –The Premier, Nouri al-Maliki, headed to the Islamic Republic of Iran to discuss the mutual relations and the regional updates.

    A source stated to All Iraq News Agency (AIN) "Maliki accompanying by a key delegation headed to Tehran according to a formal invitation to discuss the bilateral relations and the regional developments."

    http://www.alliraqnews.com/en/index....tical&Itemid=2

    and

    Maliki arrives in Tehran
    Wednesday, 04 December 2013 11:09

    Baghdad (AIN) –The Premier, Nouri al-Maliki, has arrived in Tehran to meet the Iranian key officials.

    A private report received by AIN cited "The Iranian Energy Minister, Hameed Jitjan, and the Undersecretary of the Iranian Foreign Minister received Maliki at the airport."

    http://www.alliraqnews.com/en/index....tical&Itemid=2

    and

    Official statement: Maliki's visit to Iran lasts for 2 days
    Wednesday, 04 December 2013 11:46

    Baghdad (AIN) –An official statement cited that the Premier, Nouri al-Maliki's visit to Iran to last for two days.

    The statement which was published by Maliki's office, assured that "Maliki left to Iran in a two-day visit according to an official invitation."

    "Maliki to meet with the key Iranian officials and to discuss consolidating the mutual relations in addition to some regional issues," the statement concluded.

    http://www.alliraqnews.com/en/index....tical&Itemid=2
    Last edited by chattels; 12-04-2013 at 11:23 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •