US, Iran trade accusations at first talks
(AP)Updated: 2007-03-11 08:52
"The discussions were limited and focused on Iraq and I don't want to speculate after that," said the Afghan-born Khalilzad, who greeted Araghchi in the Persian language.
Nevertheless, the discussions illustrated the deep differences between Tehran and Washington, although each insists that full-scale civil war is in neither country's interest.
"Regarding security, we have channels that we can put to use," Araghchi told The Associated Press. "We are ready for any help we can give to Iraq."
Reza Amiri, a senior official at the Iranian Foreign Ministry, dismissed American claims that Tehran was destabilizing Iraq by arming Shiite militias. The U.S. military has insisted that Iranian weapons, including a new generation of powerful roadside bombs, have killed more than 170 U.S. and coalition troops here since mid-2004.
"They're lying because it is just not true," Amiri told the AP. "Iraq's borders with Iran are the most secure of Iraqi borders. The Iraqi government has not even once said Iran is interfering in its affairs."
But Amiri said Saturday's conference was "very positive" because "everyone promised to cooperate with each other and to control the borders."
The delegates proposed an "expanded" follow-up meeting, which could include the G-8 nations and others, in Istanbul, Turkey, next month. Iraqi officials, however, say they will urge that the next meeting take place again in Baghdad.
For Iran, opening more direct contacts with Washington could help promote their shared interests in preventing full-scale war between Sunnis and Shiites. Iran has influence among Shiite political parties with ties to militias.
"Security of Iraq is our security and stability in Iraq is a necessity for peace and security in the region," Araghchi said at the news conference.
The Baghdad talks come as the U.S. administration has toughened its rhetoric on Iran and flexed its muscles at the U.N. over Tehran's disputed nuclear program. The tough talk has been accompanied by the arrival of two U.S. carrier battle groups near the Iranian shores in the Persian Gulf.
Iranians increasingly fear that a U.S. attack is imminent despite American insistence to the contrary.
The U.S. and Iran severed diplomatic ties after Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran following the 1979 Islamic revolution. In the late 1990s, U.S. and Iranian envoys were part of an eight-nation group studying Afghanistan's troubles under the Taliban, and both nations took part in meetings to establish an interim Afghan government after the Taliban's fall in 2001.
In 2000, a four-member U.S. congressional delegation met with Iran's parliament speaker, Mehdi Karroubi, and others for informal talks during a worldwide gathering of lawmakers in New York.
Iranian analyst Saeid Leylaz said the Baghdad conference would be a non-starter if it's not followed by a one-on-one dialogue between Washington and Tehran.
"How can you expect us to talk to them about Iraq's security without Iran's security being part of the talks?" said Leylaz.
He said only a "constructive and strategic dialogue between Tehran and Washington" would resolve the Iraq problem.
"Tehran could help temporarily in Iraq," said Leylaz, "but for an everlasting solution, talks should comprise of security guarantees for the whole region," said Leylaz.
"The Americans must understand the question of security is a matter of life and death for Iran," he said. And no where is that security as vital for Iran as on its borders with Iraq.
 | 1 | 2 |
|
||
|
||
|
|