Skip to comments.Iraq, Iran reach agreement on security
Posted on 11/29/2006 8:28:12 PM PST by freedomdefender
Iraq's president said Wednesday he had reached a security agreement with Iran, which the United States accuses of fueling the chaos in the war-torn country. Iran's president called on countries to stop backing "terrorists" in Iraq and for the Americans to withdraw.
Tehran is believed to back some of the Shiite militias blamed in the vicious sectarian killings that have thrown the country into chaos. The United States has said the Iraqi government should press Iran to stop interfering in its affairs in a bid to calm the violence.
Presidents Jalal Talabani of Iraq and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran held talks Wednesday hours before U.S. President George W. Bush was due to meet with the Iraqi prime minister in Jordan in talks aimed at finding a solution to Iraq's spiraling bloodshed.
Talabani gave no details on the security agreement with Iran, and Ahmadinejad made no mention of any deal at a joint press conference in Tehran.
"We discussed in the fields of security, economy, oil and industry. Our agreement was complete," Talabani told reporters. "This visit was 100 percent successful. Its result will appear soon."
It was not clear if Talabani's comments reflected an agreement by Tehran to try to rein in Shiite militias. Most of the militias are run by political parties that are a powerful part of the coalition government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He has resisted U.S. pressure to crack down on the militias.
Ahmadinejad repeated his calls for the United States to withdraw its forces from Iraq.
"I advise you to leave Iraq," he said, addressing the Americans. "Based on a timetable, transfer the responsibilities to Iraqi government. This will agree to your interests, too."
He urged countries to stop backing militants in Iraq, saying, "supporting terrorists is the ugliest act that they can do." He did not specify which countries he was referring to.
Ahmadinejad said "extremists should be dismissed (from the Iraqi government) no matter to which group and ethnicity they belong to. This is the only way to salvation."
"Enemies of Iraq are trying to create differences and extend hostility among the Iraqi people," he said.
The United States accuses Iran and its ally Syria of stirring up violence in Iraq. Tehran denies this, saying it seeks calm in its neighbor and that an end to the bloodshed can only come when U.S. forces withdraw.
Al-Maliki and Talabani both have longtime ties with Iran. The Iraqi president has been in Iran the past three days, meeting Ahmadinejad and the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Talabani and Ahmadinejad attended a ceremony for the signing of two memorandums of understanding for cooperation in education and industry.
Ahmadinejad vowed that Iran "will stand by its Iraqi brothers," saying "no one can divide nations of Iran and Iraq."
Good. Glad that's all cleared up.
Twilight Zone material.
And to think our good soldiers gave their blood for this....a sell-out "leader" in Iraq. This is beyond comprehension.
hmmm, obviously we can't trust him, or expect much, but this is a positive development.
I agree. it makes me sick to my stomach.
Please explain why and how this is a "positive" development.
Good. Glad that's all cleared up.
I'm afraid we won't be turning Iran into anything. "Engagment" is now the watchword. Of course we have no carrot or stick to offer Iran to make them stop meddling in Iraq (especially if we pull out troops) but that hasn't stopped the liberals or "realists" from insisting we go to them, hat in hand.
Perhaps it's more of a "this can't be bad" development.
But, you have a guy that has traditionally publicly called for terrorism, now denouncing it. You have Iraq and Iran seeming to take some responsibility for the violence. While remote, you also have a possible way out for the US.
Ahmanutjob said: "supporting terrorists is the ugliest act that they can do."
Pot = Kettle = Black: Whow knew?
Iran will rule Iraq. The US can get out, but when the Iraqi killing starts, we'd better do nothing but watch. It's out of our hands once Iraq surrenders to Iran.
We did more than our fair share to set them up with a decent government after we took out Saddam for our own defense. If they surrender to a mad man, let them reap what they've sown.
I don't know what you're complaining about. This official was duly elected through the process undertaken by the people of Iraq (who gave his party control of their legislature). Don't you remember seeing picture after picture of their purple fingers? And the associated back slapping and hand claps from 'conservatives' around the world? What? You didn't expect them to actually fall in line with US interests once they started using that blessed democracy Bush kept talking about it did you? Woodrow would be proud.
Just hope y'all won't be too upset when a Persian superstate (or at least a very close tie between Iraq and Iran) starts to appear (give it 15-20 years)....Woohoo, can I get a cheer for 'spreading democracy'?
P.S. Realists told you this would happen over three years ago....
nuke nuke nuke nuke
As best I can tell there is no longer a WOT in the Middle East. We have now accepted Syria and Iran although they sponsor terrorism. We are not positioned to take out the Iranian nuke program.
I think Bush long ago wimped out, he sidelined Cheney, tossed out Rumsfeld, the Neocons left. We now are into "finding a way out." Absolutely pathetic and ineffective.
They didn't know the American people would choose the cut and run democrats at the time. If America as a whole had stood securely behind them, things would be a lot different today.
What would YOU do if those who were there to help you constantly discussed packing up and leaving? Would you still listen to them, or would you take the safest route to what ever peace you could find?
I want a real live test of MOAB.......may inspire the right kind of awe needed in that region.
Thing is, many American officials were genuinely surprised when it happened.
A politically correct war can never be won. Political correctness guarantees a military loss.
Realists told you this would happen over three years ago....Exactly. We took Iran's mortal enemy out of the picture for them. Why should we be surprised that Iran now has more time and resources for mischief? Realists think about balance of power and consequences.
It's a comin'...and it's coming soon.
Iran is about to get control of Iraq's oil regions, and we are going to be left (maybe) with the Sunnis and Kurds as the only hands to play against the Shia.
Didn't have to be this way if we used our position to go forward, instead of wimping out. I can't imagine we are going to attack the Iranian nukes if we run from Iraq and allow Iraq to become partnered with Iran.
We need to bomb the daylights out of Ahmadinejad and his Iran N-O-W!!!
... has a hand in all that has happened in Iraq.Most of what Iran has had a hand in with regards to Iraq in the last 26 years is to gas them with chemical weapons and to recover from being gassed themselves. Iran fought a bitter and destructive war with Iraq through most of the 1980s. After that they had a tense standoff along their heavily armed border. Iran shed no tears over the fall of Sadam.
If America had been of one mind we could have brought democracy to the middle east, but US politics and the quest for personal power was more important to the left. They couldn't see the bigger picture. They won their war, but brought even more chaos to the rest of the world because of it.
Iran has agreed to only use their specially manufactured shape charges on American forces. Bastards..
Yes, and this never made sense unless Iraq was to be a strategic point from which we could attack, control, at least pressure Iran and to some extent Syria.There was a time when I thought they knew something secret that made this ridiculous situation make sense. I'm starting to see they just weren't thinking about the consequences of starting this war.
Gosh, at least now Reuters, the AP, and others don't have to pay for reporters, they can outsource them.
Guys like the Green Helment guy in Lebanon, and others. Just think, these big media organizations can save lots of money just printing stuff from the Iranian Press Service, and the DNC.
And they wonder why the media is trusted less than politicians, and they are bleeding advertising dollars and readers (slap me in the face!!!!).
hmmnnn,ever notice how conveniently located this $h!thole sCab Iran is relative to afghanistan And iraq? AND theres a open ocean out the backside?
I think the scab will be coming off shortly....
some of the blame needs to vest with jimmy c. he shud a dealt it then but was afraid to stir the pot. NOW look whats in the tube!
Talabani is a Kurd. I can't imagine him making any partition deals with Iran.
The Israelis better start dusting off those nukes.
They're gonna need 'em soon.
Yep still about us isn't it? Wouldn't matter who was elected here in the US. The election in Iraq happened before the election here in the US. The die was cast not by action or inaction here in the US. It was cast when the Iraqi people flew their purple fingers in the air and elected a legislature who eventually chose Maliki as President. Exactly what we told you would happen. The Iraqi people chose who they felt would serve their interests, not ours. And their interests are more involved with religion. So you can thank the policy of 'spreading democracy' for turning Iraq into a theocratic state in the next generation
We need to bomb the daylights out of Ahmadinejad and his Iran N-O-W!!!
Indeed, that idiot is talking as if Iraq and Iran are one nation already!
It is as he wants it to be; as he wills it to be. How Rick Santorum had been the voice of one crying in the wilderness about this. Do we have the will and the time to stop this idiot from getting us first?
I don't believe Bush will leave office before bombing Iran, the common denominator of all the ME and Islamofascist problems. That will take the wind out of the ba$tards sails.
Other Sunni Muslim countries are not one country. In fact, most of them dislike each other.
Kind of like France and Germany agreeing on a security plan in 1939? Wonder if the libs loved that one too?
I know you have offered your confidence in this President before. I have always believed in him and his will to protect and defend this nation. He is up against so much resistence and political ill-will that sometimes I wonder. Thanks you, "melancholy", for your informed and upbeat confidence!!
I hope you will be correct, but I don't see it happening short of a US domestic terror attack directly linked to Tehran. Israel will likely take care of this before the US does it. Alot can happen before the next inauguration day in January 2009, but all I really see coming is Ahmadnutjob's power increasing in the region during the next two years.
You see, if an attack happens on US soil, God Forbid, the MSM will start the same rumors that was leveled against FDR, "he knew about Pearle Harbor and let happen to get us in WW II!!!) Therefore, it's a no win situation because we have a very substantial fifth column. AND, suppose for the sake of argument it doesn't happen, do we let Iran get the bomb, kill us in Iraq, foment civil war in Lebanon, Hezbollah, hamas...?
With all due respect, Israel doesn't have the capability to conduct an air war on Iran for weeks. They may be able to take the reactor out and that's it.
If this happens, we're going to be accused of helping and with the predictable uproar and stoppage; the job isn't finished.
We've got to do it and take Iran's power completely and thoroughly. As a result, Ahmadinejad may very well be history.
Who said this (I cannot remember):
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."? History DOES repeat itself and King Solomon said:
"That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun."*
* New American Standard Bible, pps. 635, 636
how does this "security agreement" make anyone more secure?
Or Outer Limits.
Well, our soldiers (and Marines) gave their blood for Iraqis' freedom and right to vote. They voted this guy in. I hope they change their minds soon.
I hope and trust you're not hoping that happens?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.