post deal, washington could support iran's participation in a geneva gathering organized under the offices of the united nations. united states could press iran to play a more constructive role in relieving the umanitarian crisis in syria, particularly by extending cooperation on humanitarian ccess. it is unclear how far tehran would be willing to go to use leverage to bring about a political settlement that would lead to the eventual departure of assad, but once iran has seated at the table, it will be forced to show its cards rather quickly. the four-point plan on syria which includes a cease fire and the formation of a national unity government and constitutional revision process that would decentralize the power in syria and a new election i think offers a good starting point for discussions. on afghanistan, there clearly are some very strong overlapping u.s. and iranian nterests in afghanistan. the nuclear deal combined with a smaller u.s. troop presence with set the stage. both governments have voiced strong support for afghanistan's new government under their president. both have called for the full implementation of the national

, washington could support iran's participation in a geneva iii gathering that was organized under the auspices of the united nations. within this context the united states could then press iran to put a more constructive role in relieving the humanitarian crisis in syria, particularly by extending cooperation on humanitarian access. it is unclear at this point how far tehran would be willing to go to use its leverage to bring about a political settlement that would lead to the eventual departure of assad. i think once i ran has a seat at the table, which it has been seeking for quite some time now, it will be forced to show its cards rather quickly. iranian foreign minister zarif four-point plan on syria, which includes a cease-fire, the formation of a national unity government, constitutional revision process that would decentralize the power in syria, at any election i think offers a good starting point for discussions. on afghanistan, there clearly are some very strong overlapping u.s. and iranian interests in afghanistan. a nuclear deal combined with a small u.s. troop presence in afghanistan would set the stage for direct u.s.-iran discussions on afghanistan. both

iran would be meaningless. posted deal washington could support the participation in the geneva gathering that was organized under the auspices of the united nations. within this context, the united states could then press iran to play a more constructive role in relieving the humanitarian crisis in serious particularly by extending cooperation on humanitarian access. now it is unclear at this point how far tehran would be willing to go to use its leverage to bring about a political settlement that would lead to the eventual departure of al-assad but i think once iran has a seat at the table, which it has been seeking for quite some time now, it will be forced to show its card rather quickly. the iranian foreign minister for plaintiff land on theory a which includes a cease-fire, the formation of a national unity government, constitutional revision process that would be centralizing and the power in serious and the new election i think offers a good starting point for discussion. on afghanistan there are some overlapping u.s. and iranian interests in afghanistan. the nuclear deal combined with a smaller u.s. troop presence in afghanistan would set the stage for the direct discussions on afghanistan. bot