There is little chance that this week's US-Iranian talks will end hidden war in Iraq, explains Salah Hemeid When Ryan C Crocker, the US ambassador in Baghdad met his Iranian counterpart Hassan Kazemi Qomi in the Iraqi capital on Monday, the expectations were low and the encounter was only seen as a test of intent and probably of will on both sides. While the United States wanted to use this critical dialogue to press Iran to take steps to help stabilise the war-ravaged country both politically and militarily, Tehran wanted to use the public diplomacy to establish itself as a key regional player. Even before the talks started the two sides drew their red lines with the United States laying out a comprehensive account of Iran's growing military role in Iraq -- including claims that Iran is providing weapons, technology and other support to Iraqi militia groups. Tehran set its agenda by insisting that Washington should "admit its wrong policies in Iraq, make a conscious decision to change them and fulfil its responsibilities." The talks came at a time of growing tensions between Washington and Tehran over a range of issues, including Iran's continuing defiance of international pressure and sanctions over its nuclear programme. Only a few days before the talks, the US Navy staged a show of military force off Iran's coast by sending warships with 17,000 sailors and marines on board to carry out a naval manoeuvre. Another source of tension has been the recent arrests in Iran of a number of Iranian-Americans. Tehran accuses them of spying and says US intelligence is trying to undermine the Islamic authorities. The arrests seemed linked to an earlier detention of five Iranian agents in Iraq by US troops. As expected, the talks yielded little if no concrete agreement. After a four-hour session at the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki's office, Crocker told reporters that his talks with Qomi had been business-like and "proceeded positively and that both sides wanted to move towards a stable, federal Iraq. This is about actions not just principles, and I laid out to the Iranians direct, specific concerns about their behaviour in Iraq and their support for militias that are fighting Iraqi and coalition forces," Crocker told a news conference. Qomi only said that he proposed another meeting within a month. But ahead of the discussions Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki appeared cautious and said any future meetings depended on whether Washington would admit that it was wrong. "We are hopeful that Washington's realistic approach to the current issues concerning Iraq will include a willingness to acknowledge that its policy in Iraq has failed and by showing a determination to change this and that will guarantee the success of these talks and possible future talks," Mottaki said. In fact, the Bush administration brought limited leverage to the talks while Iran seemed to have a number of advantages. For example, Iran has stronger ties with all the concerned political parties, militias and warlords in the Shia and Kurdish communities than Washington does. Iran is believed to have the best intelligence apparatus in Iraq. It also has the advantage of a religious relationship with the majority Shia population. The administration, meanwhile, seems to be in disarray over its strategy in the violence-wrecked country. For example, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have been pressing for dialogue with the Iranians. President George W Bush reluctantly agreed while Vice-President Dick Cheney, remained opposed. Bush's government, which had rejected an earlier recommendation by the Iraq Study Group to talk to Iran and Syria, needs a coherent policy which should include what role Iraq's neighbours must play in stabilising the strife-torn country. The administration's failure to enlist Turkey and Iraq's Arab neighbours will have a far reaching impact on America's national strategy in the whole region. The Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa warned both the United States and Iran against sidestepping the Arabs in any talks on Iraq. "The United States and Iran are not the only parties which are concerned with the situation in Iraq," Moussa said on Tuesday." Iraq's Arab neighbours have interests in Iraq too and it is also part of the Arab League," he said. Commentators across the Arab world were even more blunt in criticising the Baghdad talks though some remained sceptical that they will result in an end to the Iraqi quagmire. The talks came amid reports that May was the deadliest month for American soldiers in Iraq since the war started. On Tuesday the US military reported the deaths of eight troops in roadside bombings and a helicopter crash, raising the toll so far to 112 this month -- the fourth highest fatality count since the 2003 invasion. It also came amid reports that the administration was considering sharp cuts in troop levels to around 100,000 by mid- 2008 from close to 150,000 at present. Citing unnamed administration officials, The New York Times said on Saturday the plan would lower the number of American soldiers in Iraq to roughly 100,000 by the time the 2008 US presidential election moves into high gear. This would also greatly scale back the mission that Bush set for the US military when he gave it orders in January to win back control of Baghdad. Although there is no indication that Bush is preparing to call for an early withdrawal from Iraq, the reduction in the military presence will certainly be interpreted by Tehran as another sign of weakness on Washington's part. Furthermore, there are other reasons for Tehran to rejoice in America's setbacks. On the eve of the talks, the firebrand Shia leader Moqtada Al-Sadr, whom the United States accuses of forging an alliance with Iran, made a dramatic comeback after he had disappeared following the implementation of the Baghdad Security plan. US officials claimed that Al-Sadr was in Iran and further accused Iran of fuelling sectarian violence with its support for his Al-Mahdi Army. In a speech at the grand mosque of Kuffa on Friday, Al-Sadr sought to portray himself as a nationalist leader as he called on the Americans to get out of Iraq, offered to work with the Sunni minority and told his militiamen to stop fighting Iraqi forces. Al-Sadr's return which came ahead of the US-Iranian talks seem to be timely as he tries to reassert his authority over this political group which has some 30 seats in the 275-member parliament as well as over his militia, which the US military says has begun fragmenting into rogue splinter groups. There is now a strong possibility that Al-Sadr will also see in the US-Iranian talks a point of weakness and his followers could well assert themselves yet again and with even more force, from their strong holds in Baghdad and other southern cities. It appears that both the American and Iranian officials hope, and appear to believe, that the new course will eventually win the day, but like so many times in this complicated situation, this could be a moment of opportunity or one of great danger.
