| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Tehran Wants to Talk to US About Iraq (Only) |
| 2006-03-16 |
| A top Iranian official said Thursday that Tehran was ready to open direct talks with the U.S. over Iraq, marking a major shift in Iranian foreign policy. "To resolve Iraqi issues and help the establishment of an independent and free government in Iraq, we agree to [talks with the U.S.]," Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator and secretary of the country's Supreme National Security Council, told reporters after a closed meeting of the parliament Thursday. The White House said the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, is authorized to talk with Iran about Iraq, much as the U.S. has talked with Iran about issues relating to Afghanistan. "But this is a very narrow mandate dealing specifically with issues relating to Iraq," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, adding that it didn't include U.S. concerns about Iran's nuclear program. Previous discussions between Washington and Tehran in recent years have focused on logistics involved with the war in Afghanistan and earthquake relief efforts in Bam, Iran -- but all were on lower levels. The U.S. has repeatedly accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs and of sending weapons and men to help insurgents in Iraq. Mr. Larijani's statement marked the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution that Iran had officially called for dialogue with the U.S., which it has repeatedly condemned as "the Great Satan." Thursday's proposal came in response to a request from senior Iraqi Shiite leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, who on Wednesday called for Iran-U.S. talks on Iraq. Mr. Hakim has close ties to Iran, and heads one of the main Shiite parties in Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. "I demand the leadership in Iran to open a clear dialogue with America about Iraq," he said. "It is in the interests of the Iraqi people that such dialogue is opened and to find an understanding on various issues." Ashraf Qazi, the top United Nations envoy in Iraq, said "without knowing about this in any detail, right now I would say this is a welcome development provided it's acceptable to both sides." Mr. Larijani said Iran will officially name negotiators for direct talks with the U.S. "These talks will merely be about resolving Iraqi issues," he told the parliament. The U.S. 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 at home. Militant students held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The U.S. accuses Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to build an atomic bomb. Tehran denies this, saying its nuclear program is geared merely toward generating electricity, not a bomb. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said the administration had concluded "the best way" to deal with the nuclear program is at the U.N. Security Council. While Mr. Burns didn't flatly reject Mr. Larijani's overture, he said "we have made the calculation Â… it is better to try to isolate the Iranian government" and that effort has caught Tehran's attention. |
| Posted by:Captain America |
| #5 Why do we hafta talk? Why can't we just do unto other as they have done unto us? Not (necessarily) with a nuke.... We gotta be better at rhetoric games than the Mad Mullahs! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-03-16 22:21 |
| #4 I wonder if Bolton will wear his cape and helmet. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-16 20:19 |
| #3 As far as Iraq goes, it is not any of Iran's business. We do have the issue of Iranian meddling in Iraq, like supporting terrorists, supplying new and more deadly IEDs, etc. However, we have nothing to talk about on that subject except cease and desist. End of discussion. Have a nice day. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-03-16 20:08 |
| #2 Is "piss off" an acceptable diplomatic answer? |
| Posted by: Thinemp Whimble2412 2006-03-16 19:59 |
| #1 Why would we want to follow the example of the Eurodinks into pointless talks on any subject with a regime that will be toast before the shape of the table is agreed upon? Look up! LOL. |
| Posted by: Glert Thetch2165 2006-03-16 19:35 |