US and Iran agree to Iraq talks

BBC ^ | Thursday, 16 March 2006, 18:54 GMT | staff

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Last Updated: Thursday, 16 March 2006, 18:54 GMT

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version

US and Iran agree to Iraq talks

Iran has not had public talks with the US since 1979

Iran and the US say they are prepared to hold bilateral talks on Iraq.

It would be the first public dialogue since the 1979 hostage crisis, after which the nations broke off ties, correspondents say.

Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Tehran would agree to talks to "resolve Iraqi issues" and help establish an independent government.

The White House said the US would talk about Iraq, but not about Iran's controversial nuclear programme.

Mr Larijani did not say when the talks would take place or at what level.

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent, Jonathan Marcus, says that while the nations' fundamental interests differ, they may have some short-term goals in common.

The increasing violence and disorder in Iraq is making Tehran just as worried as Washington, he says.

Accusations

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, was authorised to talk to Iran about Iraq.

It is in the interests of the Iraqi people that such dialogue is opened Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, Shia cleric Common ground for rivals

"But this is a very narrow mandate dealing specifically with issues relating to Iraq," he said.

Mr McClellan said the question of Iran's nuclear programme, over which Tehran is facing increasing international pressure, was a "separate issue" to be dealt with at the UN.

On Wednesday, an influential Iraqi Shia leader had urged "clear dialogue" between the US and Iran on Iraq.

"It is in the interests of the Iraqi people that such dialogue is opened," Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim said.

Mr Larijani said that Iran "accepted the proposal" to start a dialogue.

Media reports suggested Mr Khalilzad had expressed readiness to meet Iranian officials.

But he told the BBC that Iran's role in Iraq was "mixed".

He said that although Iran said it backed Iraqi rebuilding, "it is also pursuing a complicated strategy with some extremist groups, facilitating the activities of those forces that are opposed to the system".

In the past, the US has accused Iran of backing insurgents in Iraq.

Last week the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reported Iran to the Security Council over its controversial nuclear programme.

The Security Council starts talks this week and has the power to impose sanctions.

Iran has vowed to resist international pressure, saying that it has the right to peaceful nuclear technology.

It denies US and EU accusations that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

[smith288]

What are we going to do? THey arent reasonable leaders in Iran.

[leadpenny]

As you were saying . . .

[reagan_fanatic]

The increasing violence and disorder in Iraq is making Tehran just as worried as Washington, he says.

Excuse me while I laugh at the absurdity of that statement.

[Michael Goldsberry]

Iran blinked.

[toddlintown]

Waste of time.

[leadpenny]

I wouldn't laugh too loud. If the leader (what's his name) had everything under control in Iran, he wouldn't be lashing out at other parts of the world. He has other internal factions to mollify.

[Just A Nobody]

.
save for later

[Captain Kirk]

Of course, could it be that Bush blinked?.....nah.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the AP:

U.S., Iran Willing to Talk About Iraq

*********************************************

Today: March 16, 2006 at 12:51:27 PST

U.S., Iran Willing to Talk About Iraq

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
ASSOCIATED PRESS

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -

Iran said Thursday it was prepared to talk directly with the United States about Iraq, a major shift for a country that has long avoided negotiations with what it calls the "Great Satan."

The offer appears to reflect the desire of at least some top Iranian officials to relieve Western pressure over Tehran's nuclear program in return for help on Iraq, which is sliding ominously toward civil war.

The Bush administration said it would talk with Iran - but only about Iraq, not nuclear issues.

The White House said the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, is already authorized to talk with Iran about Iraq.

"But this is a very narrow mandate dealing specifically with issues relating to Iraq," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, adding that it did not include U.S. concerns about Iran's nuclear program. "That's a separate issue."

The secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, told reporters any talks between the United States and Iran would be limited to Iraqi issues. Larijani, who is also Iran's top nuclear negotiator, said Khalilzad had repeatedly invited Iran for talks on Iraq.

Despite the caveats, any direct dialogue between Tehran and Washington could be the beginning of negotiations between the two foes over Iran's nuclear program.

A Washington analyst on Iran, Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that while talks would not go further than Iraq, their atmosphere "will spill over into every other area of contention between the United States and Iran."

Washington accuses Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons and is leading a campaign for U.N. Security Council action. Iran denies the allegation, but would like to avoid any penalties from the U.N. body, which is expected to discuss Iran's nuclear program this month.

The United States also accuses Iran of meddling in Iraqi politics and of sending weapons and men to support the insurgency.

"To resolve Iraqi issues, and to help the establishment of an independent and free government in Iraq, we agree to (talks with the United States)," Larijani told reporters after a closed meeting of parliament Thursday. He added that negotiators would be appointed for the talks, but declined to give further details.

His statement marked the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution that Iran had officially proposed dialogue with the United States.

Analyst Davoud Hermidas Bavand, a professor of international relations at Tehran's Imam Sadeq University, said Larijani's call was a genuine offer that could have significant consequences.

"This could be the beginning of a major breakthrough, ending more than two and a half decades of estrangement between Tehran and Washington," Bavand said.

He said some clerics within the ruling establishment are convinced Iran will be harmed by a head-on collision with the world over its nuclear activities.

How much support such views enjoy is unclear, but it is known that there are clerics who disagree with the foreign policy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who takes a hard line against dialogue with the United States.

Bavand said when Iran's nuclear program was reported to the U.N. Security Council last month, Russia and China sent messages to Iran saying that if it wanted a face-saving solution, it had to talk to America.

"Iran needs America to calm the growing tension over its nuclear program," Bavand said. At the same time, Washington wants to restore stability to Iraq, "and Iran has sufficient weight and influence to help it out."

Another political analyst, Saeed Leylaz, also said Tehran would be prepared to trade progress on Iraq with movement on the nuclear issue by Washington.

"Continued instability in Iraq is hampering America's plans for the Middle East. Iran is ready to use its Iraq card to protect its nuclear achievements before it is too late," Leylaz said.

The proposal to hold direct talks on Iraq came a day after the senior Iraqi Shiite politician, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, called for Iran-U.S. talks.

"I demand the leadership in Iran to open a clear dialogue with America about Iraq," said al-Hakim, who has close ties with Iran. "It is in the interests of the Iraqi people that such dialogue is opened and reaches an understanding on various issues."

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently accused Iranian Revolutionary Guards of assisting the smuggling of explosives and bomb-making material into Iraq.

Iran denied it, saying the occupying forces were responsible for the instability in Iraq.

But Iran has expressed grave concern about the violence in Iraq, where sectarian fighting and reprisal killings have escalated recently.

The United States broke diplomatic relations with Iran in 1979 after the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was seized by students to protest Washington's refusal to hand over Iran's former monarch for trial. The militants held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

Tehran-Washington relations began thawing after the 1997 election of former President Mohammad Khatami, who called for cultural and athletic exchanges to help bring down the wall of mistrust between both countries.

But relations worsened after President Bush named Iran as part of an "axis of evil."

Nevertheless, Iran supported the reconstruction process in Afghanistan after U.S.-supported forces ousted the Taliban regime in late 2001. It also took part in the international agreement signed in Germany that mapped out Afghanistan's transition to democracy.

--

[ARCADIA]

There is a time for fighting and a time for talking; I wonder if our government will ever make up its mind.

[MNJohnnie]

Of course, could it be that Bush blinked?.....nah.

Nope. Just more of the usual dance we have to put up with to appease the Do Nothing Democrat Leadership in the US Senate. Unless we waste all this time talking, they and the Whine All The Time Republican "Moderates" will block us from taking any meaningful action,

[ARCADIA]

Waste of time.

Just giving them time to complete their nuclear program.

[MNJohnnie]

Tell it to the Democrat Senators. They are the ones doing everything they can to undercut our efforts.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

This might have helped:

US backs first-strike attack plan

**************************************************

Last Updated: Thursday, 16 March 2006, 13:33 GMT

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version

US backs first-strike attack plan

President Bush has consistently backed the pre-emptive doctrine

The US will not shy away from attacking regimes it considers hostile, or groups it believes have nuclear or chemical weapons, the White House has confirmed.

In the first restatement of national security strategy since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US singles out Iran as the greatest single current danger.

The new policy backs the policy of pre-emptive war first issued in 2002, and criticised since the Iraq war.

But it stresses that the US aims to spread democracy through diplomacy.

The new strategy also highlights a string of other global issues of concern to the US, such as the spread of Aids, the threat of pandemic flu and the prospect of natural and environmental disasters.

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is due to make a speech launching the new strategy on Thursday.

Other key points include:

• Stressing US preference for "transformational diplomacy" and coalition building, but not necessarily within United Nations or Nato frameworks

• Criticising the lack of democratic freedoms in Russia and China

• Branding Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a "demagogue" aiming to destabilise the region

• Urging Palestinian radical group Hamas to recognise Israel, renounce violence and disarm.

Seven despots

The substance of the revised strategy focuses on the challenges facing the US in the wake of the Iraq war.

In a nod to previous high-level foreign policy statements, which singled out individual countries as potential enemies of the US, the new document highlights seven "despotic" states.

NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader Download the reader here Read the document (422k) Key points

They are: North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe.

The policy of the US, according to the opening words of the 49-page document, is "to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world".

These motives underpin US policy towards the continuing stand-off over Iran's nuclear programme, the document says.

But it stresses that continuing diplomatic efforts must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided, vowing to take "all necessary measures" to protect US interests against Iran.

'Bush doctrine'

The new document, overseen and approved by Mr Bush, leaves the so-called "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war largely unchanged.

Iran's president has taken a hard-line position

Before 2002 the US largely focused on the deterrence and containment of unfriendly states.

However, likening the current international situation to the early years of the Cold War, the new document insists on the right of the US to protect its interests using force.

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defence, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," it says.

"When the consequences of an attack with WMD [weapons of mass destruction] are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialise."

[RetiredArmy]

Me too. I need assistance getting off the floor.

[ARCADIA]

The President needs to put his case in front of the people; he should forget the UN and get that done; and, until he does that, he is going to flounder around.

[tomahawk]

He's lazy.

[Rutles4Ever]

I have a bridge to sell to anyone who honestly thinks these talks are going to be about Iraq.

[wolfcreek]

The new policy backs the policy of pre-emptive war first issued in 2002, and criticised since the Iraq war.

This will cause Cindy Sheethead's brain to explode.