For the first time in decades, the two great nations got together, face-to-face, over some kabab koobideh and kateh -- the Iranians with their "I love NYC" t-shirts and the Americans with their "Mission Accomplished" t-shirts, and the Iraqis with their "We're royally f***ed" t-shirts -- and declared their never-dying love for one another and everlasting friendship... Iran and US conclude Iraq talks http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B39C1376-3C2E-46C1-8435-7B1AB2B72F98.htm Talks between Iran and the US on the security situation in Iraq have concluded "positively", the US ambassador has said. Ryan Crocker, the US envoy, and Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, his Iranian counterpart, met in Bagdhad's Green Zone, in a reversal of approach by Washington, which broke ties with Iran in 1980. Crocker said: "Discussions focused on how we might support as effectively as possible Iraq, its people and its government in restoring peace and stability to the country and furthering a political reconciliation process. "What we need to see is Iranian action on the ground." 'Positive' steps Kazemi-Qomi said Iran saw "positive" steps in the talks. "Some problems have been raised and studied and I think this was a positive step ... In the political field, the two sides agreed to support and strengthen the Iraqi government, which was another positive item achieved in these talks," he told state television. Crocker said the Iranians had proposed setting up a mechanism with Iranian, US and Iraqi participation to co-ordinate on Iraq's security. He said he would refer the proposal to Washington. Kazemi-Qomi told reporters that Iran had offered to help train and arm Iraq's military. From Tehran, Manouchehr Mottaki, Iraq's foreign minister, left open the possibility of future meetings with the US but only if Washington admitted its war in Iraq and other regional issues have not been successful. "We are hopeful that Washington's realistic outlook toward the current issues in Iraq, a confession about its failed policy there and the region as well as an indication of determination to change the policy would guarantee the success of the current talks and possible further negotiations." Crocker said that "the Iranians did not go into any great detail" during the meeting at the home of Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone. 'Opening of a door' "They made the assertion that the coalition presence was an occupation and the effort to train the Iraqi security forces had been inadequate to the challenges." It was the first high-level meeting between the two countries for 27 years. Iraqi officials also attended the meeting. Al-Maliki told both sides that Iraqis want a stable country free of foreign forces and regional interference. He also said that the US-led forces in Iraq were only here to help build up the army and police and the country would not be used as a launching ground for a US attack on its neighbours - a clear reference to Iran. Hoda Abdel-Hamid, Al Jazeera's Iraq correspondent, said that the meeting should be viewed as the "opening of a door". "Both parties are deeply suspicious of one another. The issues are complicated and intertwined, so you can't look at the Iraq situation without looking at broader regional issues. "Publicly, the US wants Iran to stop training and providing the Shia militias with weapons, and logistical and financial support [and] Iran wants a US timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. "Iran has some of the strongest political and economic ties in Iraq. "[But] Iraq also needs the US at this stage because of its security situation. It cannot take care of security issues by itself," she said. Talks hailed Hoshiyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, said: "I think it is a positive development. We should encourage it and build on it. This is just the beginning of the process." Iran's nuclear programme, which Washington believes to be a bid for developing atomic weapons, was not discussed. at the meeting. Crocker said that the US expected Iran to propose a second meeting on Iraq. As the meeting ended, a truck bomb exploded outside one of Baghdad's most revered shrines in the business district of Sinak, killing at least 19 people and damaging the Abdel Qadir Gilani Mosque. (Ahh...those Iraqis sure know how to celebrate!)
'Bout time.. Just because the US and Iran have finally started talking to each other doesn't mean things will change overnight but this is a necessary first step towards figuring out some way to stabilize Iraq. Anyway how long as it been since the Iraq Study Group recommended this, a year? For that matter a lot of people have been telling the Admin. that they needed to talk to Iran about Iraq for years.
Is this "progress" IYOs? Would 'warmer' relations with Iran alleviate many of our hardships in Iraq? Is this basically a U.S. confession of policy failure in Iraq? Did we 'flinch' first? I read some blogs where people weren't happy with this at all, calling it 'appeasement' and an acknowledgement of our weak position in Iraq vis-a-vis the Iranians ("the Iranians brought us to our knees in Iraq" was one of the comments posted by an angry war supporter). For me, I see this as a pragmatic approach by the administration, and I think it signals that they're more willing to be 'open-minded' and make an earnest attempt to find alternative approaches to finding an Iraqi solution. I don't think it's a sign of weakness; far from it. The Iranians wanted this as much as we did, probably more so. All along, the Iranians wanted one thing above all else: our respect, to be seen as an 'equal' or at least given the time of day instead of threatened and belittled. It will be interesting to see if or how things change as we move forward...
U.S., Iran end 27-year diplomatic freeze http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070528/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_iran_talks BAGHDAD - The United States and Iran broke a 27-year diplomatic freeze Monday with a four-hour meeting about Iraqi security. The American envoy said there was broad policy agreement, but that Iran must stop arming and financing militants who are attacking U.S. and Iraqi forces. Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi told The Associated Press that the two sides would meet again in less than a month. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said Washington would decide only after the Iraqi government issued an invitation. "We don't have a formal invitation to respond to just yet, so it doesn't make sense to respond to what we don't have," Crocker told reporters after the meeting. The talks in the Green Zone offices of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki were the first formal and scheduled meeting between Iranian and American government officials since the United States broke diplomatic relations with Tehran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the seizure of the U.S. Embassy. An AP reporter who witnessed the opening of the session said Crocker and Kazemi shook hands. The American envoy called the meeting "businesslike" and said at "the level of policy and principle, the Iranian position as articulated by the Iranian ambassador was very close to our own." However, he said: "What we would obviously like to see, and the Iraqis would clearly like to see, is an action by Iran on the ground to bring what it's actually doing in line with its stated policy." Speaking later at a news conference in the Iranian Embassy, Kazemi said: "We don't take the American accusations seriously." Crocker declined to detail what Kazemi had said in the session, but the Iranian diplomat — formerly a top official in the elite Revolutionary Guards Quds Force — said he had offered to train and equip the Iraqi army and police to create "a new military and security structure" for Iraq. Kazemi said U.S. efforts to rebuild those forces were inadequate to handle the chaos in Iraq, for which he said Washington bore sole responsibility. He said he also offered to provide what assistance Iran could in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, which he said had been "demolished by the American invaders." The icebreaking session, according to both sides, did not veer into other difficult issues that encumber the U.S.-Iranian relationship — primarily Iran's nuclear program and the more than a quarter-century history of diplomatic estrangement. For its part, Iran's Shiite theocracy fears the Bush administration harbors plans for regime change in Tehran and could act on those desires as it did against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Washington and its Sunni Arab allies are deeply unnerved by growing Iranian influence in the Middle East and the spread of increasingly radical Islam. Compounding all that is Iran's open hostility to Israel. But the issues at hand in these first formal contacts portend a bruising set of talks — all other issues aside — should the two sides have follow-up meetings. The Americans insist that Iran, specifically its Quds force, has been bankrolling, arming and training Iraqi militants, particularly the Mahdi Army militia of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Those men, who are deeply embedded in the Iraqi armed forces and police, are believed to make up the Shiite death squads that have pushed Baghdad into the violence and chaos that prompted the U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown, now in its fourth month. Beyond that, Iran is charged with sending into Iraq the deadly explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, the armor piercing roadside bombs that have killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers. Mahdi Army commanders have told AP that they receive those weapons from the Revolutionary Guards and that many of the militia's foot soldiers have gone to Iran for training with the elite military force. Kazemi and Crocker said the Iranians did not raise the subject of seven Iranians that were captured by the United States in Iraq. Five are still in U.S. custody. "The focus of our discussions were Iraq and Iraq only," Crocker said. Just before 10:30 a.m., al-Maliki greeted the two ambassadors and led them into a conference room, where they sat across a long, glistening wood table from each other. Al-Maliki then made a brief statement before leaving. He told both sides that Iraqis wanted a stable country free of foreign forces and regional interference. Iraq should not be turned into a base for terrorist groups, he said, adding that the U.S.-led forces in Iraq were only here to help rebuild the army, police and infrastructure. The United States had no plans to launch a strike against Iran from Iraq, he said. "We are sure that securing progress in this meeting would, without doubt, enhance the bridges of trust between the two countries and create a positive atmosphere" that would help them deal with other issues, he said. After he left, the meeting moved to a second room where the delegations sat at three long tables draped in white cloth and put together in a triangular formation. National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie took charge of the Iraqi delegation. In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the talks could lead to future meetings, but only if Washington admitted that its Middle East policy had failed. "We are hopeful that Washington's realistic approach to the current issues of Iraq — by confessing its failed policy in Iraq and the region and by showing a determination to changing the policy — guarantees success of the talks and possible further talks," Mottaki said. Crocker said he could not speculate whether future talks — even if they happened — would be raised to a higher-level, perhaps that of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Mottaki. One reporter asked Crocker if he had a meal with Kazemi during a break in the talks that ran over the lunch hour. No, the veteran American Mideast hand said, a wry tone in his voice. "We drank tea together."
This is definitely an admission of failure. Did we flinch first? Yes, because there was a 0% chance Iran would ever "flinch" regarding Iraq because time was on their side and they knew it. Obviously they were going to arm allies who would resist the occupation because (for right or wrong) any sane country would do the same thing. This meeting is about 2 years too late. Right now, Iran holds the cards because the U.S. has immense resources bogged down in Iraq while, for relatively cheap, Iran can influence things there just as much. To call this a "pragmatic" move by the Bush-ites gives them too much credit. However, if you mean pragmatic in the sense of domestic U.S. politics (only) I will agree. The fact this war has shredded the standing of the Republican party and the fact GOP senators and congressmen are attacking the administration is the reason for the "pragmatism". If the Bush crew had a blank check to do what they wanted, this meeting would not have taken place. The respect issue with Iran is almost past tense. Regarding Iraq, it mattered more in the past than it does now. They now want to completely control the government of Iraq. Maybe 2-3 years ago respect would have meant more to them but Iran is so close to achieving their loftiest goals in Iraq they could probably care less what the U.S. thinks about them by now. They are in a borderline can't lose situation while the U.S. is in a can't win.
This also puts more pressure on Iran's neighbors, who are mostly Sunni. A lot of these countries backed Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war. This would give Iran one less border to worry about as well. The only positive is that it will help stabilize Iraq. The problem is that it makes Iran a bigger power in the middle east than it already is.
I love this. We do not enter into talks with any of the neighboring Arab nations, and the left screams that we are going to attack Iran. We enter into talks with Iran, and the left screams that we have failed because we are talking to Iran. Some people will find fault against those on the other side of the aisle regardless of what they do.
The fact is the Bush-ite strategy of going it alone in Iraq has failed miserably beyond our worst nightmares. This is proven beyond a doubt by the king-sized flip-flop by the Bush-ites of having direct talks with Iran. Did you also know Iran is not Arab? Wouldn't surprise me if you didn't. They all look alike, right? There is a big difference.
I think it's a failure because the Admin has created the condition for it. Just like N. Korea, they're caught making peace with an Axis of Evil again, so it's no wonder the hawks, who have had the Neville Chamberlain allegory tatooed on their chests, are seething. Like many have written, I think it was something that had to be done if only because Iran is our next biggest neighbor and holds sway with the largest ethnic group inside Iraq. Iran's importance is much more than that, and Bush's blanket antagonism (the undeserved with the deserved) with Iran serves nothing more on the Iraqi front than to push the Iraqi Shiites closer to their neighbors. I don't think the Iranians only want our respect. I'd expect them like any other regional power to push even further with concessions in other fronts. Countries around the world are like piranhas smelling blood in the water. It's not because we're weak, but rather the failure of Iraq and our foreign policy flip flopping that is making us look weak. Bush has effectively handicapped his options without getting much in return.
That is why it's a sign of weakness. We didn't want it at all, the Iranians wanted it a lot, and we gave in to them because things are tough in Iraq (in no small part thanks to Iran). This is the epitome of rewarding terrorists. We shouldn't be making concessions to Iran, we should be blowing up nuclear sites, bombing IRGC positions, etc. We went from ignoring them to kissing their feet. Way too much carrot and not nearly enough stick.
How is bombing Iran going to make things better for Iraq? Would've that just make the Iranians more determined to cause trouble in Iraq.. Win lose or draw this is something that had to be done and is in the interest of all sides. If you consider it a failure then that's too bad. Its only a failure because the current Admin. resisted it for so long.
WTF??? Listen...if this is the best argument that you have. Do us all a favor and stay out of it. You can accuse me of any type of bigotry you would like. It: 1. isn't true; 2. isn't productive; and 3. tends to derail threads. Carry on with your lack of a point.
the comment was about how diplomacy, although the most PC answer, isnt always the best. it had nothing to do with who belonged to what and when. i wasnt talking about rick adleman.
