Iran Shows Bad Faith by Rejecting Talks With U.S.

Published in Azzaman
(Iraq) on 30 April 2006
by Fatih Abdulsalam (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by . Edited by .

<p>Edited by Louis Standish</p>

We have yet to hear a plausible explanation for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's sudden decision to cancel talks with the U.S.

What exactly did Iran want to hold these talks in the first place? Why did it change its mind once a new [Shiite] Iraqi prime minister was selected?

Ahmadinejad's statement shows that the long-awaited mission - at least as far as Iran is concerned - is no longer needed, because of the selection of the new prime minister. Iran apparently feels no need to talk to the U.S. about anything else.

A senior Iranian official tried to explain the abrupt and nervous refusal of Ahmadinejad to enter direct talks with Washington by saying that the President thought that with Iraq's first step on the path to a stable government, the talks were unnecessary.

But the lingering question is what Tehran sought to gain by seeking and then rejecting talks with the U.S. over Iraq.

Iran must have at least a few wise men capable of seeing that their own political example hasn't a chance of success in Iraq. Despite the shackles that have constrained its political progress for decades, Iraq is a country that shuns isolation.

Iranian officials should know that good relations are based on the development of economic, commercial and tourist cooperation between neighboring countries, both of which are endowed with huge oil reserves and human resources.

Such relations are far better than those based on hegemony and exploitation, or policies based on primitive motives and the incitement of the tired and wary Iraqi street.

Iran, more than any other country, should have shown more effective solidarity with Iraqis as they strive to turn a new political page.

Tehran should not have fallen into U.S. trap by only heeding the voices that pleased it. Iran must know that by any measure, in its standoff with the U.S. it is losing its bet on the Iraqi card. Even hinting at that card sends the wrong signal to Iraqis, who have already borne the brunt of several wars.

Iraqis do not want to be fodder for yet another war.


We have yet to hear a plausible explanation for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's sudden decision to cancel talks with the U.S.

Why exactly did Iran want to hold these talks in the first place? Why did it change its mind once a new [Shiite] Iraqi prime minister was selected?

Ahmadinejad's statement shows that the long-awaited mission - at least as far as Iran is concerned - is no longer needed, because of the selection of the new prime minister. Iran apparently feels no need to talk to the U.S. about anything else.

A senior Iranian official tried to explain the abrupt and nervous refusal of Ahmadinejad to enter direct talks with Washington by saying that the president thought that with Iraq's first step on the path towards a stable government, the talks were unnecessary.

But the lingering question is what Tehran sought to gain by seeking and then rejecting talks with the U.S. over Iraq.

Iran must have at least a few wise men capable of seeing that their own political example hasn't a chance of success in Iraq. Despite the shackles that have constrained its political progress for decades, Iraq is a country that shuns isolation.

Iranian officials should know that good relations are based on the development of economic, commercial and tourist cooperation between neighboring countries, both of which are endowed with huge oil reserves and human resources.

Such relations are far better than those based on hegemony and exploitation, or policies based on primitive motives and the incitement of the tired and wary Iraqi street.

Iran, more than any other country, should have shown more effective solidarity with Iraqis as they strive to turn a new political page.

Tehran should not have fallen into the U.S. trap by only heeding the voices that pleased it. Iran must know that by any measure in its standoff with the U.S., it is losing its bet on the Iraqi card. Even hinting at that card sends the wrong signal to Iraqis, who have already borne the brunt of several wars.

Iraqis do not want to be fodder for yet another war.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Topics

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

     

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Related Articles

India: How America’s Iraq Oil Saga Might Be Replayed in Syria

Venezuela: What Is ExxonMobil Up to in Iraq and the Essequibo?

Turkey: Will the US Withdraw from Iraq?

Iraq: Extending an Invitation to Washington: Bafel Talabani Affirms that US Forces and the International Coalition Are Not Invaders!