Iran, U.S. Agree To Iraq Talks

(CBS/AP)  The U.S. and Iran say they will hold upcoming talks in Baghdad about improving Iraq's security — a historic political turnabout for the two countries with the most influence over Iraq's future.

Expectations of progress remain low, however, with tough issues at stake and mutual suspicions running high. Even as it announced the talks Sunday, Iran lashed out at Vice President Dick Cheney's weekend warnings about its nuclear program, saying it would retaliate if the U.S. attacked it.

Yet the two sides said they were setting aside such differences to focus on a narrow issue — Iraq's continued violence and sharp political deterioration.

"The purpose is to try to make sure that the Iranians play a productive role in Iraq," said Gordon Johndroe, the White House's National Security Council spokesman.

Cheney's spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, also confirmed the upcoming talks, saying the vice president supports the move as long as they focus solely on Iraq.

Despite the agreement to meet in Iraq, Iran's hard-line president kept up his anti-American rhetoric, leading a raucous rally in Dubai — a tightly controlled U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the rally came a day after a low-key visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, which was aimed at countering Tehran's influence in the region.

Ahmadinejad told a cheering crowd Sunday that America was to blame for creating instability and robbing the region of its wealth.

"We are telling you to leave the region. This is for your benefit and the benefit of your nation," Ahmadinejad shouted to the crowd of thousands at a soccer stadium. "The nations of the region can no longer take you forcing yourself on them. The nations of the region know better how to create peace and security."

Iran agreed to the direct talks with the U.S. "after consultation with Iraqi officials, in order to lessen the pain of the Iraqi people, support the Iraqi government and establish security and peace in Iraq," the state-run news agency, IRNA, quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini as saying.

Iraqi leaders have leaned on the Bush administration to try to cooperate with Iran in the interest of stabilizing their country. Likewise, some Mideast Arab allies of the U.S. — increasingly distrustful of Iraq's Shiite-led government — have pushed for talks with Iran as a way to reduce sectarian tensions in the country and stop attacks against Sunnis.

The decision to talk comes at a critical time of plunging U.S. support for the war and growing pressure from Congress for Iraq's government to make some political progress, or lose U.S. backing. Many critics say the U.S.- and Iraqi-led security push and troop buildup is also struggling.

In March, lower-level U.S. and Iranian diplomats did hold rare, brief talks on the sidelines of a Baghdad gathering. At a follow-up conference a week ago in Egypt, there was a casual chat between the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and Iran's deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi.

There had been speculation of a Cabinet-level meeting at that Egypt conference, but neither Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nor Iran's foreign minister wanted to make the initial move, passing up what would have been the first high-level, face-to-face talks since the U.S. broke off relations with Tehran after the 1979 hostage crisis.

Until this spring, the Bush administration had dismissed calls for both outreach to Iran and Syria. At the Egyptian conference, Rice did sit down for a talk with Syria's top diplomat.

The timing of the upcoming talks in Baghdad was unclear, but Johndroe and Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, both said they expected them to occur sometime in the next few weeks. The talks could be between Crocker and the Iranians, Johndroe said.

The Baghdad setting will allow for "serious, quiet and focused discussions on the responsibilities and the obligations of all to help stabilize the situation in Iraq," Zebari said.

Despite the planned talks, mutual suspicion and tension between the two countries runs high.

During a visit to the United Arab Emirates, hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanded Sunday that the U.S. leave the Middle East — two days after Cheney warned Tehran that Washington will not allow it to develop nuclear weapons or dominate the region.

"We are telling you to leave the region. This is for your benefit and the benefit of your nation," Ahmadinejad told the crowd at a soccer stadium in Dubai.

Iran has stressed that it sees the U.S. military presence in Iraq as a serious threat to its security. More than 140,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq — with more expected this month as part of a stepped-up Baghdad security operation.

The U.S. sees Iran as the biggest threat to Iraq's stability, accusing Tehran of supplying Shiite militias with deadly roadside bombs that kill American troops. Iran denies the accusations.

[grazinggoat]

We are telling you to leave the region. This is for your benefit and the benefit of your nation," Ahmadinejad

Sounds like good advice and 60% of Americans now agree more with the leader of Iran, than with our "sitting Duck".
Posted by neoconRcrazy at 04:40 AM : May 14, 2007

-Funny one neoconRcrazy! when shall we elect AhMandyAndJed for president?

[grazinggoat]

At the very least, they all are laughing at how incompetent we look, as the war goes on. So much power, so many troops, so little effectiveness...the limits of a superpower.
Posted by toldyouso21 at 02:45 PM : May 14, 2007

-toldyouso21, such a jolly boy/girl! lol
-arse008 such a jelly boy/girl, maybe jelly brain as well! lol

[toldyouso21]

Big US bully to Iran during the war: "WHEN WE GET FINISHED HERE, WE ARE GOING TO KICK YOUR IRANIAN AZZZ." [PAUSE]

US again, a few months later: "HELP, WE'VE FALLEN AND WE CAN'T GET UP" CHIRP CHIRP CHIRP CHIRP

Question: WSID? What should Iran do? hmmmmmmmm.

[toldyouso21]

Why should Iran help America secure Iraq? America is accomplishing the very same thing Iran would have had to do had they been successful in their war with Iraq. Why should they help America when they already are winning with the minimum of soldier losses? This is probably the cheapest and most successful war Iran has not had to fight--that accomplishes their goals.

the worse we do--the more it will serve as a lesson that:

1. America's version of helping will destroy a country

2. That "Democracy" as the US states it means chaos and death to any country they invade.

3. Despite our fire power, we are bunglers and can be stymied by a few men and guns (so we are not invincible)

4. We are not to be trusted and we are every bit as evil and terroristic as the groups who use torture and bombs (they can point to WP use, our bombs and what we are doing in Iraq)

5. On the surface, pretend to go along and agree--behind close doors, agree to NEVER agree or trust America.

Why should anyone in the ME help us to win--if we win...we might be encouraged to do it to another country. But if we lose--maybe we will leave them alone--this is probably what they all are thinking. At the very least, they all are laughing at how incompetent we look, as the war goes on. So much power, so many troops, so little effectiveness...the limits of a superpower.

[iceman_1960]

"In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja)...

[MAKE UP YOUR MIND, LARS !!]

...They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress..."
- Posted by lars008 at 09:37 AM : May 14, 2007

For the 10th time I ask the question...

Did Jefferson and Adams dispatch a large force to try to impose democracy on the Shores of Tripoli and elsewhere in North Africa ?

No. They were too smart for that. And they knew the Constitution too well -- they helped write it.

Next.

[tibu987]

Yes, let's talk and then talk some more before we go in to invade Iran. Let's talk before sending in more of our young people to be killed and innocent Iranian women and children killed and their infrastructure bombed to pieces.
The alternative is always available if the U.S is threatened in some way. But let's talk first.
Isn't this what is called common sense?

[lars008-2009]

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! March 23, 1775 Patrick

USA's PLEDGE 2 THE WORLD GIVEN BY JFK!!

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
--John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1961 "

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." --John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1961 "

One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Winston Churchill

Edmund Burke: All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.

[lars008-2009]

Appeal for Redress
Sign this Appeal.
This site is an Appeal For Redress in support of our mission in Iraq.
An Appeal For Redress is an authorized means for active duty military to submit a grievance to Congress. It can be signed by Active Duty, Reserve, or National Guard military personnel.
It is authorized by DoD Directive 1325.6 and DoD Directive 7050.6.
The wording of the Appeal for Redress is:
As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.
If you are active duty, reservist or national guard, please Sign this Appeal.
Most service members fully support the war in Iraq and feel calls to retreat by Congress and attacks by our media on our conduct and mission act to motivate our enemy while demoralizing our support at home, directly increasing the threat we face and resulting in greater American casualties. This Appeal for Redress provides a way in which individual service members can appeal to Congress to fully support us and actively oppose media attacks on our mission and our morale.
This Appeal will be delivered to members of Congress.
http://www.appealforcourage.org/

[lars008-2009]

Appeal for Redress
Sign this Appeal.
This site is an Appeal For Redress in support of our mission in Iraq.
An Appeal For Redress is an authorized means for active duty military to submit a grievance to Congress. It can be signed by Active Duty, Reserve, or National Guard military personnel.
It is authorized by DoD Directive 1325.6 and DoD Directive 7050.6.
The wording of the Appeal for Redress is:
As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.
If you are active duty, reservist or national guard, please Sign this Appeal.
Most service members fully support the war in Iraq and feel calls to retreat by Congress and attacks by our media on our conduct and mission act to motivate our enemy while demoralizing our support at home, directly increasing the threat we face and resulting in greater American casualties. This Appeal for Redress provides a way in which individual service members can appeal to Congress to fully support us and actively oppose media attacks on our mission and our morale.
This Appeal will be delivered to members of Congress.
http://www.appealforcourage.org/

[lars008-2009]

there is no peace with fascist nazi islam%u2026.. there never has been in it%u2019s 1400 year existence%u2026

dnc are like john adams and want to give the jihadist their lunch money hoping they will leave us alone....

gop are like thomas jefferson and want to spend their lunch money on weapons and go kick the jihadists in their arses.....

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad

Thomas Jefferson knew about fascist nazi islam..... he killed plenty of them....

In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm
muslim justifies slavery and piracy%u2026
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6bdec278-6a71-4436-bc4d-29d1c54b0ad7