Summit Report: U.S., Iraq, Iran Plan Security Committee
BAGHDAD (AP) - The United States, Iran and Iraq have agreed to set up a security subcommittee to carry forward talks on restoring stability in Iraq, the U.S. envoy said Tuesday at the end of a second round of groundbreaking talks with his Iranian counterpart.
“We discussed ways forward, and one of the issues we discussed was the formation of a security subcommittee that would address at an expert or technical level some issues relating to security, be that support for violent militias, al-Qaida or border security,” Ambassador Ryan Crocker said after the meeting that included lunch and spanned nearly seven hours.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said experts would meet as early as Wednesday to work out the structure and mechanism of the committee.
“We hope that the next round of talks will be on a higher level if progress is made,” he said at a separate news conference after the talks.
But underscoring the rising tensions between the two foes, Crocker reiterated accusations that Iran is fueling the violence in Iraq by arming and training Shiite militias. He warned that no progress could be made unless Iranian actions change on the ground.
“The fact is, as we made very clear in today’s talks, that over the roughly two months since our last meeting we’ve actually seen militia- related activity that could be attributed to Iranian support go up and not down,” Crocker said, citing testimony from detainees and weapons and ammunition confiscated in Iraq as evidence.
“We made it clear to the Iranians that we know what they’re doing (and) it’s up to them to decide what they want to do about it,” he said.
For his part, Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi countered that Tehran was helping Iraq deal with the security situation but Iraqis were “victimized by terror and the presence of foreign forces” on their territory.
He said his delegation also demanded the release of five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in Iraq. The United States has said the five were linked to Iran’s elite Quds Force, which it has accused of arming and training Iraqi militants. Iran says the five are diplomats who were legally in Iraq.
“There are also Iranian citizens who have been detained on legally entering Iraq. We demanded their release too. We discussed the creation of a mechanism to implement what we achieved in the first round of talks. They (the Americans) acknowledged making mistakes and this is a step forward in itself and it’s now up to the Americans to rectify their mistakes,” Qomi said.
The meeting was opened by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who issued an impassioned appeal for help from the two nations to stabilize Iraq and warned that militants from al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Iraq were fleeing and finding refuge elsewhere.
“We are hoping that you support stability in Iraq, an Iraq that doesn’t interfere in the affairs of others nor want anyone to meddle in its own affairs,” he said, according to excerpts of al-Maliki’s remarks released by his office.
“It’s Iraq’s right to call on everyone to stand beside it to counter the scourge of terror and extremism,” he said. “The world … must stand together and face this dangerous phenomenon and its evils, which have gone beyond the borders of Iraq after terror and al-Qaida groups received strong blows and are now running away from the fight and moving to other nations.”
An Iraqi official who was present at the meeting room said Crocker and Qomi were involved in a heated exchange early in the talks.
It began when Crocker confronted the Iranians with charges that Tehran was supporting Shiite militiamen killing U.S. troops, providing them with weapons and training. Qomi dismissed the allegations, saying the Americans had no proof, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to disclose the information.
Crocker later told reporters that portions of the long exchange were quite heated.
“I would not describe this as a shouting match throughout, but we were real clear on what our problems with their behavior was, and I just didn’t hesitate to let them know,” Crocker said.
Crocker said he expected the session to be testy, given the extensive list of U.S. complaints and the overall difficulty of the relationship.
“We’ve got a lot of problems with the Iranians, and face to face we’re not going to pull any punches,” Crocker said.
The detention of four Iranian-Americans in Iran has deepened tensions between Washington and Tehran, whose relations were already strained over Iran’s nuclear program and its support for radical militant groups like Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas and by U.S. military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf. Washington has called for their release and says the charges are false.
The first round of Iran-U.S. talks, on May 28 in Baghdad, broke a 27- year diplomatic freeze following the 1979 Islamic Revolution and U.S. Embassy takeover in Tehran. Former U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad saw Iranians on the sidelines of a Mideast meeting earlier this year and both he and Crocker met privately with Iranians over Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when the U.S. was headed into Afghanistan to depose the Taliban.
Iran had said this second round would happen last month, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other U.S officials delayed because Iran had not scaled back what Washington alleges is a concerted effort to arm militants and harm U.S. troops in Iraq.
Iraq’s fragile government has been pressing for another meeting between the two nations with the greatest influence over its future.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Another useless excercise in Jimmy Carter Diplomacy. Brilliant. (note the sarcasm)
July 24th, 2007 at 11:13 amIHMO this is all for show. Iraq is a not the main issue, the Mullahs nuke program is. Sure Mullahs would love to make Iraq the main issue, but Bush won’t let them. That is why soon, Bush will invade Iran unless Mullahs give up their nukes & nuke program.
July 24th, 2007 at 11:14 amDan(The Infidel)
Yes you are right if we had a “Carter” like president, but we don’t. The purpose of the talks is a formality or if you are the mullahs divert attention away from your nuke program. Again, President Bush means business (he does what he says) in not allowing the Mullahs to have nukes. He will invade soon, mark my words.
Look at this way. Iran has already invaded Iraq. The US present surge is a counter offensive to stop the Mullah’s (also their allies in Al-Qaeda) invasion which so far it has & then to prep the operation fields for our invasion of Iran. IMHO the go ahead for “Invasion” Iran has been in the works since early last year. Also we have been building up forces since Saddam was overthrown to invade Iran if need be. IMHO it only makes sense that President Bush removed Saddam & his ruling party from power in order to use Iraq as a springboard for a US blizgreg invasion of Iran. This will deliver the Pan-Islamic Movement a major strategic defeat.
July 24th, 2007 at 11:58 amskip1:
My reference to Carter was meant to illustrate the uselessness of trying to “talk” to jihadis. In the jihadi lexicon, they consider such talks to be hudna…just buying time, while they plan more attacks…nothing more.
And I don’t like the idea of putting Iranian diplomats on a stage in a way that makes them our equals. They are not.
They deserve a punch in their collective faces. I believe it was Reagan or Bush I that showed how to deal with these people late one night, when Seals and SAS knocked out all Iranian Navy posts in the Gulf…some very close to Iran?
They want war…they want prestige…I’m not interested in giving them prestige…Just steel on target.
July 24th, 2007 at 12:21 pmskip1, I hope you are correct. I can see that we have been preparing for this for awhile, but we have also allowed the Iranians to prepare as well. (not to mention also syria) We should strike hard now! These meetings are an attempt to make it appear that we tried every option and appease the libs. Screw the libs. The time has come to take action!
1
July 24th, 2007 at 12:57 pmAAron:
Oh yah, it’s on. Why do you think aside from handing Bush a political strategic defeat (payback for 2000 election) that the Dems were & still against the recent US Iraqi “Surge”? They know that this means Bush will invade Iran (Damascus Nancy mentioned that Bush does not have the authority to invade Iran, she didn’t say bomb but invade. She was rebuked after that, for letting the “Cat” out of the bag) & the Dems being the appeasers, defeatist want to stop him at all costs, even surrendering Iraq to Iran & Al-Qaeda. We are light years ahead of the Mullahs in terms of conventional warfare technology that knowing means nothing if you get my drift. Once the US Blitzkrieg invasion of Iran begins we can be at the gates of Tehran as in little as 10 days. That is the reason that Mullahs want nukes, 200 (enough to destroy the US & the West as we know it) or so to prevent this from happening. Then after that, the mullahs figure that the US politicians, American people after Bush will have no stomach for long drag out casualty high urban, guerrilla warfare & will leave the Middle East to them.
July 24th, 2007 at 2:34 pmInteresting heated exchange with the Iraniacs and Ryan Crocker:
July 24th, 2007 at 3:41 pmhttp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070724184658.hlpytw0v&show_article=1
There is no will at this time to attack Iran. The target list has been drawn up, the weapons are in place, but the will just ain’t there.
The only will that is “there” at the moment is killing and/or capturing Al Quds who are in Iraq.
Both Israel and the US keep calling for the ceasation of Iran’s nuke program, but no one is doing more than just talk.
And that’s all it is going to be, unless Iran is close to production of an actual bomb and/or they carry out their coordinated threat against Israel.
But even then, the demoraatz will use any attempt by GW to deal with Iran…outside of talking to them as a pretext to cut off funding for the war.
If it happens at all, it won’t be anytime soon. Not before 2008 anyways.
So what’s the big show of Naval power all about? Flying strikes into Afghanistan and Iraq…possibly other places?
July 24th, 2007 at 3:51 pmBut Iran…not anytime soon.
Great Patriotic Movie now on TCM (Turner Classic Movie) Channel, Strategic Air Command starring Jimmy Stewart 1955. Started at 8:00 PM EST!!
July 24th, 2007 at 4:23 pmI’m guessing that the timing of strikes against Iran has
July 25th, 2007 at 12:09 ama strong political component.
The military imperative is that Iran doesn’t build (many)
nuclear devices (that work). If we think we have a bit of time
then there are reasons to hold off because…
These wars are going to go on for some time yet and the worst
possible outcome of the 2008 elections would be to elect a
pacifist Congress and President. I’d quite enjoy seeing
Cindy Sheehan get Nancy Pelosi’s seat, that would be funny, but
seriously, an attack on Iran now, with havoc breaking
loose all over Iraq, would be the democrat’s dream ticket, and
they would probably surrender promptly thereafter.
So an Iran attack at our timing? I guess November, 08 ,
but of course events may overtake us and if they do they will
originate from Syria/Lebanon/Israel. There is a good possibility
of a regional war starting anytime now that drags in Iran,
and therefore us. That’s different. We need to be seen as
not conducting the first strike before the 08 elections.
I don’t think it’s a lack of will.
Skip1: you are quite correct. Its all for show. The iranians are up to the old trick of negotiating with the enemy while you are weak and wait until you are strong again before striking. An old muslim trick from the Koran.
July 25th, 2007 at 3:21 amDo not negotiate with these retards, tell them where its going to land, just not when. Dont bring up shit from the Iraq theatre, just tell them its not on and that there will be a landing somewhere, just not when.
Landing = glass parking lot.
Time to show the Iranians what the USS Enterprise showed the Indonesians in the ’60’s when it sank an island off jakarta, when Sukarno was getting stroppy.
Im sure there is an island in the gulf near an iranian oil terminal that is tired of being eroded by the tide every 12 hours. Put it out of its misery.
With a great fireworks display.
Message immediatly understood.Thats Diplomacy