I don’t really have much to say about this one, it’s just an article about recent negotiations with Iran that I thought was interesting:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2349990.ece

An excerpt:

During Saturday’s talks, Mr Satterfield pointed to his briefcase, claiming it contained documents that proved Iran was arming Shia militias in Iraq, a remark that earned him a stinging rebuke from the Iranian envoy. “Your accusations are merely a cover for your failures in Iraq,” Mr Aragchi replied.

The Americans have been asserting for some weeks that Iranian technology has been used in bombs that have killed up to 170 American and other foreign troops in Iraq. Yet their “evidence” does not appear to prove any such thing; Iraq is awash with weapons and explosives and other bomb-making materials and it seems unlikely Shia gunmen need any training from the Iranians.

But the whole anti-Iranian stance of the US administration over Iraq does not appear to make much sense. It accuses Tehran of interfering in the work of the Iraqi government - despite the fact the largest parties in the Iraqi government were born and nurtured in Iran. In other words, Iran is already “in” Baghdad and its protégés are running the show from the Green Zone close to the Foreign Ministry where this weekend’s talks were held.

What’s the purpose of the US’s fingerpointing at Iran? Is it merely a “cover for their failures”? Or is Iran having a significant effect on the war in Iraq? Or does it have more to do with Israel and Iran’s role in that conflict? Or something else altogether?

Leave a Reply