By Bay Fang
A long-delayed fourth round of U.S. talks with Iran over security in Iraq is expected to take place soon, but Iran has not yet agreed on a date, according to U.S. officials. The Americans had been saying that the talks could begin as early as tomorrow.
The talks will be headed on the U.S. side by Marcie B. Ries, a former Ambassador to Albania who is now counselor for political-military affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Tehran had originally hoped for an ambassador-level meeting, according to a U.S. official, and has not yet announced who will be representing it at the talks.
It is not clear why the Iranians have not yet agreed on a date. One obstacle could be a meeting in Paris Saturday of diplomatic officials from France, Britain, Russia, China, Germany and the U.S. to discuss the next round of United Nations sanctions targeting Iran's nuclear program.
Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, will be representing the US at those talks, and he hopes to get Chinese cooperation on pushing a stronger set of sanctions on Iran.
U.S .officials in Iraq have noted a decline in the number of Iranian-sponsored attacks around the country over the past couple of months, but have not spoken directly to Tehran about security in Iraq since the last round of talks conducted by Ambassador Ryan Crocker in August. The previous sessions ended inconclusively, with Iran rejecting U.S. claims that Tehran is providing bomb-making material to Shi'ite insurgent groups that is used against U.S. troops.
The talks, which were first proposed by Iraq, would address only security issues in that country. Iran would like to raise the question of the Mujahideen el-Khalq, a militant group based in Iraq that advocates the overthrow of the Iranian regime.
Earlier this month, the U.S. released nine of the 20 Iranians captured in Iraq, which the U.S. accused of being members of the elite Quds Force, the arm of the Revolutionary Guard corps responsible for foreign operations.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Sounds like President Bush is on a roll. First the successful Annapolis conference, the beginning of talks between Israel and the Palestinians, the involvement of Sunnis in Iraq security, and now talks with Iran. Notice how silent are the Democrats in Congress with their usual cries for diplomacy. When they get it, they don't seem to be able to recognize it. Success in the Mid East appears to be an undesirable development to Democrats.
Posted by: Wendell | November 29, 2007 6:05 PM
Bush is sitting down to have "tea and crumpets" with the Terrorist Iranians?
Traitor!
Right John D?
Posted by: JT | November 29, 2007 6:12 PM
When I think of Iran, I think of the recent National Petroleum Council report (Facing the Hard Truths about Energy): "It is a hard truth that the global supply of oil and natural gas from conventional sources relied upon historically is unlikely to meet projected 50% to 60% growth in demand over the next 25 years."
All told, Big Oil and Big Gas donated more than $55 million to members of Congress from 2001 through 2005.
In return Congress lavished $6 billion in subsidies on Big Oil and Big Gas.
Shoot!, lets bestow some geothermal gear on Iran--so they don't have any use for their nuclear power program...
A 2006 MIT study on geothermal power (Wikipedia--geothermal power) estimated that there is enough energy in hard rocks 10 k below the US to supply all the world's current energy needs for 30,000 years.
In a Hot Dry Rock system a typical site would have two holes drilled and the deep rock between them fractured. Water is pumped down one hole and steam comes out of the other...
OH BABY YEAH--just forget about all that Middle East oil, because the US Dept. of Energy states that offshore wind farms have unlimited potential...
All that money we spent developing the Hydrogen Bomb, why not use solar panels in the American desert to manufacture enough hydrogen to fuel airliners--there's no distribution problem...
Home solar panels or mini-wind turbines could charge electric cars (a lot of the time...), and nowadays electric cars could go as far on a single charge as on a tank of gas, with charging taking minutes instead of hours (Wikipedia--electric vehicles).
Posted by: Michael L. Wagner | November 29, 2007 6:15 PM
This whole Annapolis party was a photo op even though Dana and the WH denies it. We have not seen any success as yet. Shaking hands and smiling for the camera is not an end to the problems that exist over there.
I thought this administration did not negotiate with terrorists as Mr. Bush claims Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil" (be very afraid here) or is this an attempt to leave some sort of legacy?
Posted by: lochnessmonster | November 29, 2007 6:57 PM
We wouldn't even be talking about Iran these days if [the worst president ever]Jimma Carter would have backed The Shaw of Iran and his family.
Maybe now Jimma Carter understands the saying,It's better to deal with the devil you know, than the devil you don't know....
Jimma Carter...worst president in the Wooooorld!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | November 29, 2007 7:39 PM
Paulo:
It's Shah, not Shaw - Shaw makes carpets.
We had backed the Shah, and he paid us back by committing human rights atrocities against his countrymen. There is no way he could hold back the wave that led to the Shi'ites taking control of the country.
The problem is that it took Bush 7 years to talk to Iran. He had the opportunity 3 years ago, before the hardliners took over, but would not talk to the "Axis of Evil".
Posted by: BobinATL | November 30, 2007 8:08 AM
Bobin, please tell me when Bill Clinton talked to Iran in eight years.
Actually the Bush administration has had several conversations with elements of the Iranian government. We also gave them aid following the earthquake a few years ago.
These talks seemed to be more aimed at Iran and its participation in supplying weaponry to Al Qaeda and remnant insurgents in Iraq. In order for general conversations to take place, you need to have rational leaders in Iran. Iran hasn't had a rational leader, or one at least semi-rational, in 30 years.
Posted by: John D | November 30, 2007 10:00 AM
"In order for general conversations to take place, you need to have rational leaders"
I think many would argue that our leader isn't exactly "rational" either.
Actually, that really is NOT a prerequisite to conversation. Its far more important to talk to your enemies than it is your friends. You could call that the Not-Bush Doctrine.
Posted by: Jones | November 30, 2007 12:11 PM