Iranian-Armenian relations

[Haykakan]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

IRANIAN PRESIDENT'S VISIT TO ARMENIA POSTPONED

Qatar News Agency
June 6, 2011 Monday 9:25 AM EST

Tehran, June 06 (QNA) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's
Monday visit to Armenia was postponed and it will take place at a
later time, deputy head of the Presidential Office for communications
and information dissemination Mohammad-Hassan Salehi-Maram said
here Monday.

Salehi-Maram said the President's visit to Yerevan was put off because
the host country had not prepared the documents which were to be
exchanged during this visit, according to Iran's news agency (IRNA).

Whenever the documents are prepared, the Iranian President will travel
to that country, he added. (QNA)


hmmmmmmmmmmm

[Armanen]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

Of course, I'm not saying for peacekeepers to replace a strong military. I was thinking 'peacekeepers' in the notion of just 3rd party observers who could see first hand the aggression of the Azeris, and thus there to be credible 3rd party witness to Azeri aggression and crimes.

You are assuming that the 3rd parties are not aware of azeri belligerence; they are and they do not care much. In private the great powers have told aliyev to cool it and Russia has now all but spelled it out that a new war will not only lead economic and social disasters but military as well since Russia will indeed back Armenia.
The addition of peacekeepers wouldn't do anything positive for Armenians and would only bring in another element into the mix, as if we needed anymore.

[Artsakh]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

Deployment of peacekeepers in Karabakh not in Armenia’s interests - expert

June 08, 2011 | 03:07

YEREVAN. – Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov’s statement that the parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict reached an agreement on deployment of peacekeeping forces in conflict zone testifies to the fact that Baku is trying to lift certain elements of the talks out of the context, Director of the “Caucasus” Institute Sergey Minasyan told Armenian News-NEWS.am.

He stressed that Baku makes a show of those elements which are in Azerbaijan’s interest, while it keeps silence about other issues, particularly the determination of Karabakh’s status quo.

“If Mammadyarov is speaking of peacekeeping forces, it means consensus is also reached on other issues, but Baku prefers to keep silence about it,” Minasyan noted.

In his turn, political analyst Yervand xxxoyan said all issues in Karabakh conflict resolution are in one package and it is impossible to separate one element from the other. Meanwhile, he emphasized that deployment of peacekeeping forces in Karabakh conflicts with the Armenian sides’ interests

http://news.am/eng/news/62386.html

[Artsakh]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

Russian expert: Iran interested in status quo maintenance in Karabakh

May 27, 2011 - 08:32 AMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - In case of hostilities in Nagorno Karabakh, the U.S. will immediately interfere to deploy its peacekeepers in the conflict zone, a Russian expert said.

“In about two hours Americans can relocate their forces from Azerbaijan and Georgia,” the director of Political and Social Research Institute for Black Sea-Caspian region, Vladimir Zakharov, told a PanArmenian.Net reporter.

“The action will be started by international forces, which would be further replaced by U.S. troops along the Karabakh border. Although not fatal for Iran, that would be a rather telling blow,” he said, adding that it is still unknown whether the U.S. will venture open confrontation with Iran or not.

“It’s hard to predict when changes can occur in the region, but I think it’s a matter of several months,” Zakharov said.

http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/politics/news/70999/

[Mos]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

The overwhelming body of scholarly evidence shows that peacekeeping does not work. As for azeri's thinking twice, did the Hutus think twice before killing the Tutsis? Or if we are to believe that the Serbs intentionally killed 8000 bosnians at Srebrnica, the Dutch sure as hell didn't stop them. As Federate wrote, the surest deterence is a strong nation represented by a strong military.

Of course, I'm not saying for peacekeepers to replace a strong military. I was thinking 'peacekeepers' in the notion of just 3rd party observers who could see first hand the aggression of the Azeris, and thus there to be credible 3rd party witness to Azeri aggression and crimes.

[Armanen]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

The only way they could be useful is that Azeris would have to think twice before attacking as there would be established 3rd party witnesses to their aggression. It would also remove snipers, and thus end all the sniper deaths. So as you see, mostly indirect benefits, as directly they are more or less useless.

The overwhelming body of scholarly evidence shows that peacekeeping does not work. As for azeri's thinking twice, did the Hutus think twice before killing the Tutsis? Or if we are to believe that the Serbs intentionally killed 8000 bosnians at Srebrnica, the Dutch sure as hell didn't stop them. As Federate wrote, the surest deterence is a strong nation represented by a strong military.

[Mos]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

Conquest of Artsakh will give the clan liberty to do as they please and the destruction of what opposition there is and it also opens a road to Yerevan. So if they think that they can win they will attack.
Why would the West do that? As we have seen countries that deliver oil to the West can do as they please without a mention of all their crimes. The biggest mistake we can make is a retreat of our troops from the front line and giving up defense positions that we have today;

I never said we retreat our troops. I was just referring to accepted points in the negotiations (withdrawing from security belt after independence of Karabakh).

It's not about the West doing it, it's about foreign investors not wanting to invest in a country that is in a war via its own initiated attack. This includes oil investors and the pipeline projects.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

Which they won't and for every day of the war they will be under immense pressure, and their precious oil money will also be dwindle along with investments. Given the amount of money the Aliyev clan is sitting on and making, a war would be a big blow to them, and they know that very well. In my view, it's just big words to keep the trust of the people - practically the status quo is the best way right now.

Conquest of Artsakh will give the clan liberty to do as they please and the destruction of what opposition there is and it also opens a road to Yerevan. So if they think that they can win they will attack.
Why would the West do that? As we have seen countries that deliver oil to the West can do as they please without a mention of all their crimes. The biggest mistake we can make is a retreat of our troops from the front line and giving up defense positions that we have today;

[Mos]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

Azeris can do as they please as long as they are really careful that no Westerner dies even with minimal casualties they can do as they please. If they start and win the war no one will care what they have done. They just need to win.

Which they won't and for every day of the war they will be under immense pressure, and their precious oil money will also be dwindle along with investments. Given the amount of money the Aliyev clan is sitting on and making, a war would be a big blow to them, and they know that very well. In my view, it's just big words to keep the trust of the people - practically the status quo is the best way right now.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

The only way they could be useful is that Azeris would have to think twice before attacking as there would be established 3rd party witnesses to their aggression. It would also remove snipers, and thus end all the sniper deaths. So as you see, mostly indirect benefits, as directly they are more or less useless.

Azeris can do as they please as long as they are really careful that no Westerner dies even with minimal casualties they can do as they please. If they start and win the war no one will care what they have done. They just need to win.