Summit of Enemies

After reading this article I came to the conclusion that the writer makes statements that can only be made by someone with either a detachment with reality or unrealistic hopes. Seeing it's a writer for the LATimes, I suppose that the latter is most probable.

The first crashing sound came just after lunch Saturday, when mortar rounds slammed into the street outside the building where U.S., Iranian and other officials were meeting here to discuss ways to end the violence in Iraq.

The next one came six hours later, when Iran's chief delegate stood on a podium and ripped into U.S. policy in Iraq, clobbering hopes that the summit would prove an ice-breaker in the two countries' chilly relations.

I'd have been more surprised if some insurgent group hadn't attacked trying to disrupt the conference. As to the "hopes" that Iran and the US would have come to some friendly discourse is foolish. Neither of the parties see any advantage to helping the other, especially in Iraq.

But much of the attention was on the U.S.-Iranian sideshow, a crucial element because of Washington's allegation that Tehran is helping Iraqi insurgents. Would the Iranian and U.S. delegates steal away for some private discussions? Would they be seated near each other during the talks? Would they commit to future meetings?

I love the "allegations" statement. Nothing like minimizing the reality of the situation. You may try to argue that Iran didn't supply the materials to make EFPs, but the Steyr rifles found in Iraq are definitive evidence that the Iranians, at some level, are supporting the insurgents.

The questions about whether the US and Iran would get together are also disturbing. This isn't reporting facts. It is editorializing.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, in his opening remarks, appeared to be angry with all of them for putting his country in the middle of their squabbles.

"Iraq does not allow itself to intrude on others' affairs, or its territory to be a launching pad for attacks against others. We … expect to have the same stance from others," he said. The prime minister also demanded that states "refrain from having a share or an influence in the Iraqi state of affairs, by trying to induce a certain sect, nationality or party."

Maliki's statements seemed aimed at Iran and the United States, and at the Arab League, which last week said it would use the conference to demand that the Shiite-led Iraqi government give Sunni Arabs a greater role.

Maliki can't lose by making such a statement. He draws a line in the sand that states involved must be working for the stability of Iraq and not peripheral disagreements. Not that this is very realistic, but it's a decent message to put out.

U.S. officials have accused Iran of providing the sophisticated armor-piercing explosives that have caused the deaths of at least 170 of the more than 3,400 U.S.-led forces killed in Iraq. Iran denies the accusation and says the United States is using it as a scapegoat for its failure to end Iraq's violence four years after the invasion.

Zebari described the U.S. exchanges with Iran and Syria as "lively," diplomatic-speak for heated. Khalilzad called them "businesslike" and said later that Iran offered no acknowledgment that it was doing any of the things of which Washington accuses it.

At a briefing for journalists after the meeting, Khalilzad said Iran had said all the right things about wanting to help bring peace to Iraq.

That accusation thing pops up quite often in the article. Though it doesn't state whether these were actually part of the summit. It does make you wonder how the conference was run. I'm guessing that the Iraqi's took the lead and that the bickering likely was a side show. The issue of security probably set off the "lively" exchanges. Iraq does have an interest in getting this out and forcing their neighbors to behave. I suppose I'll remain skeptical that anything will change.

Araghchi, who headed the 10-member Iranian delegation, told reporters that the first step toward bringing peace to Iraq was getting rid of foreign forces. Referring to U.S. actions in Iraq, he said, "They have made so many mistakes and wrongdoings … because of the false information and intelligence they had at the beginning" of the war.

He also said that the presence of foreign troops fueled the violence in Iraq by giving anti-U.S. groups a reason for attacks. That violence was then being used to justify the foreign forces' continued presence, Araghchi said. "We are in fact facing a vicious cycle.

"For the sake of peace and stability in Iraq … we need a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces," he said. Asked about the likelihood of future talks with the U.S., Araghchi said that was up to Washington.

"If the Americans are interested, there is a proper channel for that," he said.

Well, the Iranian position is clear. Things won't get better until the US leaves. And Iran gets hegemony over Iraq. Timetables don't provide stability, and they most certainly will setup the delays of major conflict. Insurgents and exterior agents will wait until the US is sufficiently withdrawn before escalating their war. No doubt this is in the interests of Iran.

The bombing in Sadr City was a particular setback for the new security plan, coming just six days after U.S. and Iraqi troops made a high-profile and peaceful foray into the neighborhood to establish a permanent base there. The area has been the domain of masked gunmen loyal to anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr. U.S. officials had touted their unfettered foray into Sadr City as solid evidence of the security plan's success.

It's interesting to see that the writer postures a single event as a setback to the surge, when in fact the overall level of violence has dropped dramatically. This is a rather foolish analysis, especially considering that there have been other attacks and bombings as the surge has advanced. The sectarian violence continues, but it has dropped more than this writer obviously cares to admit. Anyone want to guess where they stand on the surge?

Question is, will this summit have any real effects that aid in Iraqi stability? I don't see it as very likely, though the fact that the Iraqi government is working to open discussions with its neighbors is a good sign that they are trying to control their destiny.