The US and Iranian ambassadors to Iran sat down for seven full hours till late at night Tuesday, or July 24, in Baghdad, at the second round of direct talks in nearly two months, seeking ways to use their influence to bring stability to Iraq. This is the second direct security talks on Iraq between the United States and Iran at the ambassadorial level since 28 May.
The two sides are said to have had a sharp conflict with an exchange of strong language. The US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker accused Iran of supporting Iraqi sectarian violence, which Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemie Qomi flatly rejected. Despite a heated verbal exchange, the US, Iranian and Iraqi officials had a dinner together after the talks. Moreover, it was disclosed at a press conference that the three parties had agreed to set up a security subcommittee to carry forward talks on restoring stability in Iraq.
Judging from the two rounds of direct talks, the U.S and Iran merely aired their own views. Iran urged the U.S. to a troop pullout from Iraq, whereas the latter told Iran not to meddle in Iraqi affairs and this has represented their basic attitudes. Such type of "technical" talks usually cannot bring about any breakthrough at the time when the U.S. has not reached its policy decision whether to advance or retreat.
The direct US-Iranian talks on Iraqi security issue, however, imply that the United States has eventually recognized Iran as a "game player" in the region. From the angle of either geopolitics or religious culture, Iran can give scope to the role of a radiant power or influence over Iraq, which is the very evidence the U.S. refused to acknowledge but has come to recognize. So Iran is ready to talk and get involved since such recognition is conducive to its international status.
In a certain sense, it poses the common demand of both the U.S. and Iran to see the situation turn fairly stable in Iraq. On the part of the U.S., it started the Iraqi war, toppled the Saddam regime and landed itself in a "geopolitics crisis" as long envisioned by Egyptian President Hosin Mubarak. Iraq became ridden with sectarian violence and domestic turmoil.
Nevertheless, the U.S. has neither wielded any cultural influence nor have an aligning, organizational power over Iraq despite its stunning financial strength and military might; so it has felt much headache and hopes Iraq will turn more stable and then it can save its "face" either it stays on or would withdraw from the country.
On the part of Iran, it is in its own advantage if stability is attained in Iraq with Shiites taking the initiative politically. In spite of their differing ideas on the political arrangements and designs for Iraq, both nations have a common ground on Iraq's political stability. Hence, they could sit down to talk and even had the dinner together.
Some analysts cite the direct US-Iranian talks as a major success for moderate and moderate realists in the United States, as the "hardliners" in the country have insisted solely on performing a "surgical operation" against Iran.
Furthermore, in view of the latest talks, Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi was quite rational and temperate with his remarks on behalf of his government. On the nuclear enrichment program, Iran displayed a more flexible attitude toward the European Union (EU). This alone implies that Iran has worked hard to avoid giving the United States any excuse for a "showdown," so as to let things drag on till the expiration of the tenure of the Bush administration.
By People Daily Online
|
Comment
Tell A Friend
Print Format
Save Article