The centuries old proverb might be used to describe the meeting by a top US State Department official with an Iranian counterpart on Monday in Vienna, a further signal that the United States is considering working with its longtime foe, the Islamic Republic of Iran, on a way to stop the advance of fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Iraq. Over the past week and a half, the ISIL has stormed out of Syria and curveda path through the Sunni heartland of Iraq, often with the help of one-time Baathist party members and Sunni citizens fed up with their treatment at the hands of government troops. The crisis point came over the weekend when ISIL posted pictures on a social media site of the executions of what it said were 1500 Shia government troops in civilian clothing. The US and Iraq both have a lot to lose in Iraq if ISIL is left unchecked. The US has spent more than two trillion dollars into Iraq during its occupation from 2003 until 2012. The images of ISIL fighters celebrating in areas once cleared of militants by U.S, troops has infuriated many Americans, especially neo-cons who are demanding that President Obama make a dramatic re-engagement in Iraq, which he has to far refused to do. Meanwhile, Iran faces losing a very friendly government that it has cultivated for years, not to mention suddenly finding itself face to face with an extremist Islamist Sunni group that would not hesitate to attack it. So the US and Iran, at loggerheads since the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, are taking preliminary steps towards working together on a co-ordinated response to ISIL, along with other countries in the region. Secretary of State John Kerry has a phone call with Iraqi counterpart, Hoshyar Zebari, on Saturday (June 14th), according to the State Department, as Iranian President Hasan Rouhani said his government was open to co-operating with the U.S. in Iraq and that he exchanged letters with President Obama. The last time the two countries worked on a common security issue was when they shared military intelligence about the Taliban after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Even conservative politicians in Washington seemed to think it was a reasonable idea. "Why did we deal with Stalin? Because he was not as bad as Hitler," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said Sunday on CNN. While he found the idea "unattractive" but "The Iranians can provide some assets to make sure Baghdad doesn't fall." But Israel and Arab powers, such as Saudi Arabia, are worried that Iran will use the issue of co-operation on Iraq to manipulate the nuclear issue. They believe that the U.S. will be tricked into some kind of an agreement that will make it easier for Iran to maintain its nuclear programme. The New York Times reported on the weekend that "One expert who has periodically advised the American negotiating team said there was already 'a recognition the Iranians will try to milk any help on Iraq to get any advantage they can' as they haggle with the lead negotiators over how much of their nuclear infrastructure can remain if a final nuclear agreement is reached'." On Monday, the Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz told the media that Israel is very concerned about the prospect of "it's closest ally" working with Iran. Co-operation would give Tehran, he told the Jerusalem Post, "an arc of control running through Syria, where the Iranians back embattled President Bashar Assad, and on to Lebanon, where they have powerful allies in the Hezbollah militia." Saudi Arabia has already expressed its concern about the growing rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran over the past year. Watching Iran and the U.S. work together on Iraq could only make that concern even deeper. But the U.S. has vowed to keep the two issues separate, and has said ending Iran's nuclear program is still its main priority. So far the talks between Iraq and Iran have only been in the preliminary stages. The coming days will show how serious they really are.
