person:saeed jalili

  • Comment l’Iran perçoit le retrait partiel des forces russes de Syrie ?
    Selon cet article d’al-Monitor, assez sereinement, même si l’on se demande quel genre d’accord a pu être passé par les Russes avec les USA.
    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/03/iran-reaction-russia-withdrawal-syria.html

    Mehdi Mohammadi, who was an adviser to the hard-line former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, believes that due to the high probability of the cease-fires being extended, Russia decided to pull some troops from Syria because of the costs of provisioning operational forces. He added that there are enough troops to carry out attacks against terrorist groups when needed.

    Mohammadi wrote in Tansim March 15 that Russia had informed both Damascus and Tehran of the details of the withdrawal. The main question, according to Mohammadi, is, “What concession has America and the opposition agreed to in exchange [for the Russian withdrawal]?” Mohammadi, without specifying to whom he might be referring, added, “Whatever it is, there is a great strategist standing behind these events.”

    • 1ère déclaration de Poutine depuis l’annonce du retrait partiel de Syrie : la Russie peut (ré)intensifier sa présence militaire en Syrie en quelques heures :
      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-putin-idUSKCN0WJ1D4

      President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that Russia could scale up its military presence in Syria again within hours and would still bomb terrorist groups there despite a partial draw-down of forces ordered after military successes.
      Speaking in one of the Kremlin’s grandest halls three days after he ordered Russian forces to partially withdraw from Syria, the Russian leader said the smaller strike force he had left behind was big enough to help forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad keep advancing.
      “I’m sure that we will see new and serious successes in the near future,” Putin told an audience of more than 700 members of the military at an awards ceremony. In particular, he said he hoped that the ancient city of Palmyra, which is held by Islamic State, would soon fall to Assad’s forces.

    • Les différences entre l’Iran et la Russie sur la Syrie par Elijah Magnier :
      https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/the-difference-between-russia-and-iran-over-syria

      According high official present in Syria, Russia will withdraw the biggest of its air force from Hmaymeem airport in the coming days and will keep helicopters and jets, sufficient to protect the Russian naval base at Tartus, and support the war on Salafist Jihadists. This move coincides with an agreement between Washington and the Kremlin to impose the capitulation on all fighters without exception, excluding Jihadists. According to the agreement, the U.S will enforce on its regional Middle Eastern allies the cessation of the flow of weapons. Although Moscow doesn’t share the same view but aim for a general unconditional election, Washington and Saudi Arabia would be even happy for the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to select the candidate of his choice as long as he steps down. In this way, no party involved in the war in Syria can be defeated but all would come out as winners.

      What Washington and the Kremlin accept is unsuitable for Tehran. The person of Assad represents the “axis of the Resistance”. His fall leads to the shaking of the axis. As no one can guarantee the future and he is the person who has accepted to go to war to defend the doctrine and value of this axis he belongs to. Therefore, the removal of Assad is not on Iran’s agenda. For this, Iran and those within the “axis of Resistance” won’t abandon him. Otherwise, the death of thousands of those who helped Assad (Iranian IRGC forces, Hezbollah and Iraqi militia) and tens of thousands of Syrians who fought under his banner would be wasted.

  • Incoherent P5+1 Hinder Iran Nuclear Talks Progress - Iran’s View | Iran’s View
    http://www.iransview.com/incoherent-p51-hinder-iran-nuclear-talks-progress/1430

    French negotiators are said to take the strictest position in the talks against Iran, witnesses of the talks have said, and their bald statements have repeatedly derailed the progress of the talks.

    A member of the Iranian negotiating team told IransView that during Almaty I and II talks which took place in February and April 2013 in Kazakhstan, French Foreign Ministry Director-General for Political and Security Affairs Jacques Audibert, who served as the French top negotiator then, prompted Saeed Jalili to warn of leaving the talk session.

    “While Jalili was elaborating on a PowerPoint slideshow provided by the Iranian team, Audibert undiplomatically reactioned to a slide titled as ‘Common grounds of Iran – P5+1 cooperation’ and said they had not come to cooperate with Iran to reach a deal, but to stop Iran’s nuclear program,” the diplomat, who wished to remain anonymous, said. “In response, Jalili said he would leave the room if the group is seeking to fight in the talks.”

    The diplomat further added that Ashton and other members of the P5+1 group tried to stop Audibert from making such statements during the next rounds of talks.

    Observers in Tehran say that France take a stark position towards Iran while the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei has invited French officials to cooperate with Iran several times.

    “I would like […] to point out that officials of the French government have been openly hostile towards the Iranian nation over the past few years and this is not a clever move by French government officials,” said Ayatollah Khamenei during a speech on March 21, 2013.

    “A wise politician should never have the motivation to turn a neutral country into an enemy. We have never had problems with France and the French government, neither in the past nor in the present era. However, since the time of Sarkozy, the French government has adopted a policy of opposing the Iranian nation and unfortunately the current French government is pursuing the same policy. In our opinion, this is a wrong move. It is ill-advised and unwise.”

    Il semble que Mr Fabius soit seul à vouloir faire capoter les négociations avec l’Iran.

  • Pour le pouvoir israélien actuel, mieux vaut avoir des ennemis que des amis...

    Israel is sanctifying the status quo and ignoring the possibility of a new Iran - Diplomacy & Defense - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/for-the-israeli-government-iran-will-never-change.premium-1.530015

    A few hours before the unprecedented political drama unfolded on Friday in Iran, Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon reported to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and laid out his philosophy.

    The head of the Israeli defense establishment declared - without any reservations - that nothing will change as a result of the Iranian election and that, in any event, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will decide on the country’s next president.

    It did not take long for the depth of Ya’alon’s embarrassment of himself, and of those on whose behalf he flew to Washington, became clear. At best, Ya’alon’s remarks reflected a serious error in judgment on the part of Israeli intelligence and provided additional proof of the limitations of Military Intelligence and the Mossad in predicting internal political shifts in Iran and in Arab states. At worst, his words reflected arrogance, prejudice and shooting from the hip of the very worst kind.

    But how can we complain about Ya’alon, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced in Poland on Wednesdsay that Iran’s “so-called” election will not bring about any meaningful change. Netanyahu’s and Ya’alon’s Pavlovian responses, as well as the statement issued by the Foreign Ministry on Saturday night, reflect the overall approach of the Likud government which rejects all change, exaggerates the threats, plays down the opportunities and sanctifies the status quo.

    The only thing missing was for Netanyahu and Ya’alon to call for extending the term of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as in the case of Egypt and former President Hosni Mubarak.

    One thing is clear: Khamenei did not want Hasan Rowhani to win the presidential election. Iran’s supreme leader backed his national security adviser and nuclear talks envoy, Saeed Jalili. Jalilee was trounced, coming in third place and a distant 15 million votes away from Rowhani.

    Another thing is clear, too: The election will change things in Iran. A hint of this could have been found a few days ago, when Reuters published the contents of a letter sent five months ago to Khamenei by Iran’s Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, behind Ahmadinejad’s back. Salehi called on the country’s supreme leader to enter into direct talks with the United States as soon as possible. In his written response to Salehi, Khamenei said he was not optimistic about the prospects for success, but would not stop them from reaching out to Washington.

    Rowhani, as former head of Iran’s negotiations team on the nuclear issue, called back in 2005 for direct talks with the United States, made the elimination of the international sanctions against Iran the central plank of his election campaign. He even slammed Jalili for being too tough in the talks with the West.

    The post-election period could be an opportunity for a diplomatic breakthrough in Iran’s relations with the United States in general and on the nuclear issue in particular, especially in light of the results of the election.

    One more point should be mentioned, as for Ya’alon. In his remarks on Friday, the defense minister also dismissed the Arab peace initiative, including the positive change introduced recently as a result of the efforts of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, as nothing but “spin” by the media.

    Ya’alon’s remarks, coming at a time when Kerry is endeavoring to restart the peace process, were much harsher than Netanyahu’s relatively moderate message to the Knesset ten days ago. “We listen to every initiative and are willing to discuss any motion that is not a requisition,” Netanyahu said at the time.