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.