Well, it's official, sports fans...the U.S. and Iran are holding direct talks are the Iraq summit in Baghdad March 10th.
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said he exchanged views with Iranian delegates and the chief Iranian envoy, Abbas Araghchi "directly and in the presence of others" at the gathering led by Iraq's neighbors and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, but that they did not speak privately.
And if you believe that, I've got a used camel to sell you.
Khalilzad wouldn't discus details of the conversations he had with Iran's envoy - why not, if they weren't private and `in the presence of others?' - but called them "constructive and businesslike and problem-solving."
It wasn't quite so sweetness-and-light, really. According to an unnamed source, atone point 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.
details are sketchy, 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. Of course, he wasn't going to elaborate.
In the end, it all comes down to haggling over the price, as we negotiate with one of the chief Islamic terrorist enablers . Will the US and Iran come to an agreement that allows the US to exit gracefully? And what will the quid pro quo be?
We once had a president, I seem to remember, who told the world that they were either with the terrorists or with us. Whatever happened to that guy...anybody seen him around lately?
1 comment:
I actually think negotiating could be a good thing. It would show the world that at least we tried. Doesn't mean we have to accept any "compromises", just sit down and talk.
Post a Comment