US, Iran Discuss Iraq-Nam Security

The last time the US and Iran held ambassador-level talks, Jimmy Carter was president, and Iran committed an act of war by violating US embassy territory and holding US diplomats hostage. Monday, the long silence broke so the two could discuss Iraq-Namese security issues. While the two didn’t raise any other issues, the progress in these narrowly focused talks suggests there could be a useful thaw ahead in their relations.

The two negotiators, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker and Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, met in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s offices in the Green Zone. The PM made a brief statement, saying nothing of note, and left the two alone to discuss matters; as Ambassador Crocker put it, “The focus of our discussions were Iraq and Iraq only.” There could also have been mention of nuclear weapons, Americans held by Tehran, and Iranians held by the US in Iraq-Nam. However, diplomacy is successful when talking about problems that can be solved, not those that generate disagreement.

Mr. Crocker said at “the level of policy and principle, the Iranian position as articulated by the Iranian ambassador was very close to our own.” He added, “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.” Elsewhere, the American government says that Iran’s Quds force has been bankrolling, arming and training Iraqi militants, particularly the Mahdi Army militia of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Also, Iran has sent explosively formed penetrators [EFPs], the armor-piercing roadside bombs that have killed numerous US soldiers. Some support for these accusations comes from Mahdi Army commanders, who have told AP that they get weapons and training from Iran.

Iran had its own view of the subject, as former Quds force-member Ambassador Kazemi said, “We don’t take the American accusations seriously.” This is beautiful diplomat speak which can mean, “we aren’t doing it,” “we are doing much more than that,” or “we are doing exactly what the Yankees say, but can’t be stopped.” In truth, were a similar situation occurring in Mexico, the US government would (quite rightly) be involved in activities that could be considered parallel to those in which Iran might be engaged in Iraq-Nam.

In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, “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.” Mr. Bush is about to confess to no such thing, but the signals are clear. Both sides need the help of the other if they are to improve their own Iraq-Namese position, and they seem to understand that.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home