Some experts believe talks with Iran concerning Iraq are a good thing and will lead to something positive, while others, like Col. David Hunt, believe some "tit-for-tat" military action is required. Col. Hunt on Fox News yesterday and today, responded to the latest proof of Iranian involvement in Iraq. Here's some of the video. Pay no attention to Fox and Friends' Brian Kilmeade, his statements were a little out in left field. Pay special attention to Col. Hunt at the end of the video. Hunt was for talks with Iran in the past...
If you listened closely, you heard Col. Hunt say,
... make a glass factory out of Tehran ... killing Americans has got to stop!
The best bet in my estimation after listening to Col. Hunt is to attack Iran and put an end to the insurgency via Iran and Syria - put a halt to the open borders that are allowing Iranian and Syrian citizenry to smuggle weapons into Iraq.
The Major Diplomatic and Strategic Evolution in Iraq, at Stratfor
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker met Aug. 6 with Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi and Iraqi National Security Adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubaie. Separately, a committee of Iranian, Iraqi and U.S. officials held its first meeting on Iraqi security, following up on an agreement reached at a July ambassadorial-level meeting.
The U.S. team was headed by Marcie Ries, counselor for political and military affairs at the embassy in Baghdad. Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who handles Iraq for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, led the Iranian team. A U.S. Embassy spokesman described the talks as "frank and serious," saying they "focused, as agreed, on security problems in Iraq." Generally, "frank and serious" means nasty, though they probably did get down to the heart of the matter. The participants agreed to hold a second meeting, which means this one didn't blow up.
Longtime Stratfor readers will recall that we have been tracing these Iranian-American talks from the back-channel negotiations to the high-level publicly announced talks, and now to this working group on security. A multilateral regional meeting on Iraq's future was held March 10 in Baghdad, followed by a regional meeting May 4 in Egypt. Then there were ambassadorial-level meetings in Baghdad on May 28July 24. Now, not quite two weeks later, the three sides have met again.
That the discussions were frank and serious shouldn't surprise anyone. That they continue in spite of obvious deep tensions between the parties is, in our view, extremely significant. The prior ambassadorial talk lasted about seven hours. The Aug. 6 working group session lasted about four hours. These are not simply courtesy calls. The parties are spending a great deal of time talking about something.
This is not some sort of public relations stunt either. First, neither Washington nor Tehran would bother to help the other's public image. Second, neither side's public image is much helped by these talks anyway. This is the "Great Satan" talking to one-half of what is left of the "Axis of Evil." If ever there were two countries that have reason not to let the world know they are meeting, it is these two. Yet, they are meeting, and they have made the fact public. [snip]
There are three major powers with intense interest in the future of Iraq: the United States, Iran and Saudi Arabia. [snip]
Saudi Arabia's worst nightmare would be watching Iran become the dominant power in Iraq or southern Iraq. It cannot defend itself against Iran, nor does it want to be defended by U.S. troops on Saudi soil. The Saudis want Iraq as a buffer zone between Iran and their oil fields. [snip]
The United States wants to withdraw, though it doesn't see a way out because an outright unilateral withdrawal would set the stage for Iranian domination. [snip]
The situation not only is totally out of hand, but the chance that anyone will come out of it with what they really want is slim. [snip]
Hence, we see a four-hour meeting of Iranian and U.S. security experts on stabilizing the situation in Iraq. Given the little good will between the two countries, defining roles and missions in a stabilization program will require frank and serious talks indeed. Ultimately, however, there is sufficient convergence of interests that holding these talks makes sense. [snip]
These talks not only are enormously important but they also are, in some ways, more important than the daily reports on combat and terrorism. If this war ends, it will end because of negotiations like these.
What do you think? Will any good come from these meetings, or is it a show of weakness on the part of America?
Good reading. These are articles you need to take the time to read today:
Anti-CAIR: My Turn on Civil Rights, The Amboy Times
A Debate on The Iraq War & the Ties Between Saddam and al-Qaeda, Part II, Ace of Spades
What Right Could Look Like, at The Thunder Run
White Elephants, Bill Totten's Weblog
The Surge May Be Working. But Is It Too Late?, The GATE
China’s Worthless Stooges, Peace and Freedom II
". . . killing Americans has got to stop!"
Agreed, but who's really been killing Americans for the past ten years:
www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
Iran is a serious problem. But they've got to be (at best) number two on our hit list if we have any sense at all.
Posted by: Bill in Chicago | August 09, 2007 at 08:11 PM
Bill in Chicago, you are correct. The Saudis have been after us for years. I cannot understand why Bush seems to be such good friends with them, or why we keep allowing them into our country so freely.
Posted by: Debbie | August 09, 2007 at 09:31 PM
Iran is not a partner for peace. Just ask the Lebanese or the Israelis.
Talk but dont be foolish enough to think that they will negotiate in good faith.
Posted by: Freedom Now | August 10, 2007 at 01:11 PM