Round The World

New Delhi, 12 June 2007

 Quest for Stability in Iraq

Iran-US Get Talking after 27 years

By Monika Chansoria

School of International Studies, JNU

The ever-escalating and contentious crisis of the ongoing security situation as well as the future policy towards maintaining stability in Iraq witnessed Iran and the United StatesBaghdad after a 27-year hiatus. May 28 last went down as a historic day since it observed the coming together of two nations that for decades had severed their diplomatic relations with absolutely no bilateral ties whatsoever. coming face to face in

The much-hyped talks aimed at grappling with the fluid security situation in Iraq, were held at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Green Zone office though al-Maliki did not attend the deliberations. However, he greeted and urged both sides to comprehend that the utmost need of the hour was to make Iraq a secure and stable country, free of foreign forces and regional interference. He particularly stated that Iraq should not be turned into a base for terrorist groups.

Apparently this meeting was in succession to the brief encounter between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Manouchehr Mottaki, on May 4 at a conference on Iraq held at the Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheikh.

Later, while speaking in Tehran, Mottaki said the US should admit that its Middle East policy has failed. “We are hopeful that Washington’s realistic approach to the current issues of Iraq by confessing its failed policy in Iraq and the region and by showing a determination to changing the policy which guarantee success of the talks and possible further talks,” Mottaki said.

The Iranian Ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qomi represented Tehran at the talks and told the Americans that his government was ready to train and equip the Iraqi army and police in order to create “a new military and security structure.” Kazemi went on to state that the next meeting would occur in Iraq in less than one month.

However, the US Ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker responded to these overtures with caution and said that the purpose of meeting was not to arrange other meetings and that Washington would decide only after the Iraqi government issued yet another invitation.

Crocker described the session as thorough “business-like” and shared that Iran had proposed setting up a ‘trilateral security mechanism’ that would include the US and IraqIran. Crucially, the US policymakers appear to be taking their own time in order to reflect upon the diverse connotations attached to this mechanism. along with

In addition, even though Crocker accepted that there had been broad policy agreements, he stressed that he had in fact, clearly conveyed to the Iranians that Tehran needed to stop arming, funding and training the militants in and around Iraq who were indulging in attacking the US and Iraqi forces. 

According to Crocker, the Iranians denied the allegations saying they also wanted peace in Iraq. “What we need to see are Iranian actions on the ground come into harmony with their principles,” Crocker added.

Significantly, there are numerous areas witnessing a clash of interests between WashingtonTehran including the US’ accusing Iran of inciting violence in Iraq by arming and training radical Shiite militias. and

Furthermore, on the issue of Iraq, Tehran maintains that peace will not be restored in IraqUS forces leave the country. In fact, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini said before the talks between the two nations, “Tehran would merely use the Baghdad talks to remind Washington of its occupiers’ duty in Iraq.” Besides, earlier it was the late Imam Khomeini who had famously once said, “America is the Great Satan…” until the

Apparently, Tehran has historical links with some of the main Shia parties, which dominate the new Iraqi Parliament, and thus appears ardently interested in keeping a reasonably strong Shia-dominated administration in power there. Although Iran wants to see the USIraq, but not at the expense of stability of its violence-plagued neighbour. forces withdraw from

Washington obviously shelved all diplomatic relations with Tehran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the subsequent seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran by a group of radical students when they held 52 Americans hostage for as many as 444 days.

Indeed, there is a sizeable section within the Iranian media that views these talks critically such as the Jomhouri-ye Eslami daily, affiliated with the religious seminaries in the city of Qom, criticized and expressed trepidation in the light of expected Iran-US talks on the future of Iraq. Its editorial stated that Ayatollah Khomeini ‘commanded that it is forbidden to establish contact with the US as long as there has been no essential change in its arrogant policy.’

“Having realized the peculiar limitations it faces in Iraq, Iran and the region, the US is now willing to engage Iran,” said Reza Talaienik, member of Majlis’ National Security and Foreign Policy Commission. It appears from statements such as these that Washington is realizing the crucial role played by Iran in the region and that Tehran too, would want to make optimum use of this opportunity in order to make its importance felt. In fact, Tehran’s co-operation would be instrumental for peace returning to the region.

Even though Iran’s controversial nuclear programme did not figure on the agenda for the May 28 talks in that “the talks solely focussed on the stability and security of Iraq as requested by the Iraqi people and government,” according to Deputy Head of the Iran’s National Security Council, Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli. Moreover, the US Department of State spokesman Tom Casey also confirmed that only Iraq would be on the agenda and reiterated, “it’s not a forum for discussion about other events.”

Washington has taken an enormous step in agreeing to these talks in spite of repeatedly levelling accusations against Iran for pursuing a nuclear weapons programme and demands Tehran to freeze its uranium enrichment or else face stringent UN sanctions. Crucially, the Bush White House has not entirely ruled out military strikes to thwart Iran’s nuclear drive.

On the other hand, Iran labels its atomic drive as peaceful and states that the purpose of its nuclear programme is the generation of power and that any other use would be a violation of the NPT of which it is a signatory, as well as being against Iranian religious principles.

Iran claims that nuclear power is necessary for a booming population and a rapidly-industrializing nation. It has repeatedly pointed to the fact that Iran’s population has more than doubled in 20 years and the country regularly imports gasoline and electricity. There are widespread apprehensions within the West Asian nation that burning fossil fuel in large amounts would ultimately harm Iran’s environment drastically.

There has been widespread anticipation that this initiation between the two estranged nations might just prospectively yield tangible results not just in regard to bringing about stability in Iraq but also vis-à-vis future Iran-US ties.

Nevertheless, the towering stakes attach added significance and future talks would not be entirely downy and could well be clouded by the sheer complexity of issues including the much-debated Iranian pursuit of a nuclear weapons programme. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)