Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

​‘US should stop contradicting itself, send Geneva 2 invitation to Iran’

Published time: January 14, 2014 07:06
Reuters / Hamid Khatib

The US should not send mixed messages to Tehran over its participation in the upcoming Geneva II talks aimed at ending the Syrian conflict, as it could potentially damage a P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, political analyst Kaveh Afrasiabi told RT.

RT: How important do you think Iran's participation in the upcoming conference is?

Kaveh Afrasiabi: Well I think it is very important since Iran is a strategic state in a strategic alliance with Syria dating decades and is highly involved directly and indirectly in the Syrian theatre. Given the complex and multi-faceted nature of the Syrian conflict that involves the regional states and proxy wars and so forth, it is very important to get Iran involved, so there would be mediation not only between the Syrian government and the opposition, but also between competing regional states, principally Iran and Saudi Arabia.

RT: At first we heard Kerry say that he is inviting Iran to the talks but now the State department is making excuses saying that Iran won't have time to prepare for the conference. Let's take a listen.

Marie Harf: [John Kerry] was simply stating that there are ways Iran could show the world that they want to see a positive outcome, and if they did so, obviously that would mean that if they wanted to play a role in Geneva 2 on the sidelines, we would look more favorably on that. But certainly no one was indicating an openness to inviting them. These aren’t things that if they do, they would definitely be invited. They’re just things that they could do to show that they want to affect a positive outcome. But again, we have no indication they’re going to, and Geneva 2 is in how many days? So I think the likelihood of that is probably very small.

RT: So what is the US's actual stance on Iran's role in the Geneva 2 Conference?

KA: Well, it beats the hell out of me because we see contradictory signals and obviously the US is undecided on this issue. That is very unfortunate because it sends the wrong signal to Iran - even have adverse consequences with respect to confidence building on the nuclear issue.

Reuters / Hamid Khatib

Iran has stated its preparedness to participate and make constructive contributions for a political settlement in Syria and has already proven its intention by supporting the Syrian chemical weapons disarmament, as well as holding Syrian dialogue conferences with participation by various representatives of religious and ethnic spectrums in Syria.

So I think that the US should stop this self-contradiction, send an invitation through UN to Iran so that all the parties that have a stake in this conflict could participate and bring an end to this tragic, catastrophic conflict.

RT: The US is waiting for Iran to comply with the Geneva 1 communique, which means agreeing to a transitional government in Syria. So how likely is it that Iran will comply?

KA: Well, first of all, the US has its own peculiar interpretation of Geneva 1 that does not mention President Assad stepping down, yet the US is making that a priority, at least some officials in the US government do.

And if you look at the pronouncements from Tehran, from foreign minister Zarif, who is touring the region nowadays, you’ll see that he is putting the emphasis on electoral politics, on a free participatory election in Syria and hinting that Iran will weigh in on Syria with respect to the de-escalation of conflict and there are issues with respect to humanitarian access, prisoner swap and localized ceasefire, and on all these issues Iran can be the contributing factor.

And I think that there are ways of pronouncing or stating support for various aspects of the Geneva 1 final communique that Iran has not denounced or renounced or stated opposition to it, but is just a very peculiar, I think, over interpretation of it by some Western powers, above all the US.

Comments (10)

 

fish ghuts 15.01.2014 01:17

Ron Miller 14.01.2014 21:55

If Iran cannot be involved why is the USA, and other EU powers?

Nato simply does not want a peace treaty, it wants Regime Change which goes against what the UN stands for.

  


ea ch side must have equal weight. Russia uses there UN veto power to benefit Assad without regard to Syrian peasants. In order to be balanced there must be a UN veto power who benefits peasants without regard to Assad.

 

shawn 14.01.2014 23:26

Iam Craker 14.01.2014 16:57

. When they do make a decision to invite Iran or not, just know that it is in the best interests of the US government. It will benefit them in one way or another..They are not fools to put their trust in the hands of iranian idiots, or anyone for that matter..This is the US...WE MATTER.. and everyone else, well they are just pawns meant to be controlled by whatever means necessary. This is brutal truth. Accept it!

  

All it takes is 4 pawns to surround the king and its called CHECK MATE....the days are not far...

 

Ron Miller 14.01.2014 21:55

If Iran cannot be involved why is the USA, and other EU powers?

Nato simply does not want a peace treaty, it wants Regime Change which goes against what the UN stands for.

View all comments (10)
Add comment

Authorization required for adding comments

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

OK

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

X

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us

Follow us