Decision ‘08

Whether You Call It ‘Direct Talks’ Or Not…

…it appears the U.S. and Iran had some words at the Iraq security summit - and it’s safe to say, things didn’t go very well:

In their first direct talks since the Iraq war began, U.S. and Iranian envoys traded harsh words and blamed each other for the country’s crisis Saturday at a one-day international conference that some hoped would help end their 27-year diplomatic freeze.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki opened the conference with an appeal for all participants to help ease his country’s plight and prevent the violent conflict here from spilling over into the entire Middle East.

But the conference underscored the wide gulf between American and Iranian views over the nature of the crisis and the ways to end it.

During the talks, U.S. envoy David Satterfield pointed to his briefcase which he said contained documents proving Iran was arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq.

“Your accusations are merely a cover for your failures in Iraq,” Iran’s chief envoy Abbas Araghchi shot back, according to an official familiar to the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, only said that American delegates exchanged views with the Iranians “directly and in the presence of others” during talks, which he described as “constructive and businesslike.”

But Labid Abbawi, a senior Iraqi Foreign Ministry official who attended the meeting, confirmed that an argument broke out between the Iranian and American envoys. He would not elaborate.

The Telegraph is reporting that Iran asked for a timetable for withdrawal (oh, yeah, you’d like that, wouldn’t you? Have you met John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi, by the way?):

…Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, Abbas Araghchi, used the occasion to accuse the international forces in Iraq of playing a double game.

“It will help resolve the problem of violence if they set a timetable for withdrawal of their troops from Iraq,” he said. He condemned attacks on religious places and gatherings five days after a double suicide attack on a crowd of Shia pilgrims killed at least 117 Iraqis in the central city of Hilla.

The meeting was a “test” of whether the United States was serious in trying to solve Iraq’s problems. “Teheran stands ready to help bring peace and stability to Iraq,” he said. Earlier, Mr Khalilzad and Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, had called on neighbouring countries to halt the supply of weapons and recruits to sectarian armed groups fighting in Iraq.

Mr Khalilzad urged other world powers to do more to help Iraq and, in an apparent reference to Iranian demands for the release of five of their citizens detained in Iraq earlier this year, said the US would continue to act against foreign interference.

But the Wall Street Journal reports that everyone had a glass of milk and cookies:

So they went, shook hands and chatted briefly. And that was the sum of the direct interaction between American and Iranian delegates at a long-awaited, day-long regional summit on Iraq today in Baghdad.

Many observers had predicted that the gathering — organized by the Iraqi government to seek help stabilizing the country — would actually be more noteworthy as a meeting place for the U.S. and Iran, which have kept a chilly distance since the two severed ties after the 1979 Iranian revolution.

But in the end the two sides merely had a quick “meet and greet” and then exchanged remarks within the larger forum. U.S. and Iranian officials said there were no private conversations of any substance. The U.S. delegation had a slightly longer chat with the Syrians, U.S. officials said.

So what really happened at the meeting? Unfortunately for the people of Iraq, no matter which version you believe, the answer appears to be ‘not much’…