American Ambassador Crocker "agrees broadly" with Genocidal Theocracy

Ambassador Ryan Crocker said “Trilateral Mechanism” three times during the press conference following his “positive” meeting with Iran this morning.

Made me wonder just what a “Trilateral Mechanism” is, and where the term originated….

BEHOLD!

I. Introduction

This Trilateral Action Plan for Israeli-Palestinian Roadmap Phase I

Implementation complements the Baker Institute's Israeli-Palestinian Working Group Policy Paper of February 2005.

It is focused on what needs to be done following the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and part of the Northern West Bank and during the upcoming period when the Israelis and Palestinians are preparing for elections, which should conclude in the spring of 2006.

It is our hope that decision makers, under current political circumstances, will take these suggestions under serious consideration in order to secure Phase I implementation of the Roadmap and to then launch consultations with the parties, under United States leadership and within the framework of the Quartet, on Phase II and III implementation of the Roadmap.

A separate Baker Institute Report will be prepared in the spring of 2006 on this issue by the

Baker Institute's Rabin Fellow, Dr. Yair Hirschfeld.

(A prominent academic in Israel, Dr. Hirschfeld was a key architect of the Oslo Accords in 1993 -bz)

FULL REPORT (PDF)

Welcome to Baker Street!

BTW here's the money quote from that report:

2. The creation of a Joint Operation Room to facilitate the resumption of security coordination on the local level and create a trilateral mechanism to prevent Israeli action in Jenin and other regions that might jeopardize public legitimacy for the PA

BACKGROUND:

Ryan Crocker ~ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ryan Crocker / Connections

Ryan C. Crocker ~ Short Carreer Bio

Oh, LOOK.

He went "native Bedouin" back in the day. How Lawrence of Arabia.

I'll bet he has a swell anti-war scarf from Urban Outfitters stashed somewhere in his closet.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 — When Ryan C. Crocker was trying to improve his Arabic in the late 1970s, he traveled to Jordan, made contact with a desert tribe and settled in for some hands-on training a little different from the standard State Department regimen.

“He wound up being a shepherd for a week or two, chasing down stray sheep and living with the Bedouin,” said Frederic C. Hof, a retired Army officer and author on the Middle East who recalls reading Mr. Crocker’s official report on the trip when they were in language training

[SNIP]

SOURCE LINK

I want you to pay very close attention to the language in this piece and I will insert links as I merit valuable:

U.S.: Broad agreement with Iran about Iraq

U.S. envoy says Iran must end support for militants

BAGHDAD - The United States ambassador in Baghdad said he and his Iranian counterpart agreed broadly on policy toward Iraq during four-hour groundbreaking talks on Monday, but insisted that Iran end its support for militants.

During a meeting that U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker described as businesslike and focused solely on Iraq,

BECAUSE THEY DIRECTED US EXPLICITLY AS TO WHAT WE CAN AND CAN NOT SAY IN ADVANCE

the American said Iran proposed setting up a “trilateral security mechanism” that would include the U.S., Iraq and Iran. Crocker said the proposal would need study in Washington.The U.S. envoy also said he told the Iranians their country needed to stop arming, funding and training the militants. The Iranians laid out their policy toward Iraq, Crocker said, describing it as “very similar to our own policy and what the Iraqi government have set out as their own guiding principles.”

He added: “This is about actions not just principles, and I laid out to the Iranians direct, specific concerns about their behavior in Iraq and their support for militias that are fighting Iraqi and coalition forces.”

Historic talks

The Baghdad talks were the first of their kind and a small sign that Washington thinks rapprochement with Iran is possible after more than a quarter-century of diplomatic estrangement that began with the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Crocker said the Iranians wanted to propose a second session. “We will consider that when we receive it,” Crocker told reporters in the U.S.-controlled Green Zone. “The purpose of this meeting was not to arrange other meetings.”

Crocker said Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi did not raise the subject of seven Iranians now in American custody in Iraq.

HE did not raise it. Like it is entirely up to HIM. (see the end of this post)

“The focus of our discussions were Iraq and Iraq only,” Crocker said.

In the course of the meeting, Ali al-Dabagh, a government spokesman, told reporters that the session was proceeding cordially. “There are good intentions and understanding and commitment between the two countries,” al-Dabagh told reporters.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his Own Words

Ahmadinejad's Letter to the American People

The talks were held at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Green Zone office. Al-Maliki did not attend the meeting, but the prime minister greeted the two ambassadors, who shook hands, and led them into a conference room, where the ambassadors sat across from each other.

Future meetings possible

Before leaving the room, al-Maliki told both sides that Iraqis wanted a stable country free of foreign forces and regional interference. The country should not be turned into a base for terrorist groups, he said. He also said that the U.S.-led forces in Iraq were only here to help build up the army and police and the country would not be used as a launching ground for a U.S. attack on a neighbor, a clear reference to Iran.

“We are sure that securing progress in this meeting would, without doubt, enhance the bridges of trust between the two countries and create a positive atmosphere” that would help them deal with other issues, he said. Speaking in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Monday the talks could lead to future meetings, but only if Washington admits its Middle East policy has not been successful.

“We are hopeful that Washington’s realistic approach to the current issues of Iraq by confessing its failed policy in Iraq and the region and by showing a determination to changing the policy guarantees success of the talks and possible further talks,” Mottaki said.

Monday’s talks, as predicted, had a pinpoint focus: What Washington and Iran — separately or together — could do to contain the sectarian conflagration in Iraq. “The American side has accusations against Iran and the Iranian side has some remarks on the presence of the American forces on Iraqi lands, which they see as a threat to their government,” al-Dabagh said. But much more encumbered the narrow agenda — primarily Iran’s nuclear program and Iranian fears that the Bush administration will seek regime change in Tehran as it did against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Underlying issues

Washington and its Sunni Arab allies, on their side, are deeply unnerved by growing Iranian influence in the Middle East and the spread of increasingly radical Islam. Compounding all that is Iran’s open hostility to Israel. Other issues clouding the talks included U.S. Navy exercises in the Persian Gulf last week and tough talk from President Bush about new U.N. penalties over the Iranian nuclear program.

The United States says Iran is trying to build a bomb; Iran says it needs nuclear technology for energy production. Further complicating the talks, Iran said Saturday it had uncovered spy rings organized by the United States and its Western allies Iran accuses the U.S. of improperly seizing five Iranians in Iraq this spring. The U.S. military is holding the five. Iran says they are diplomats; Washington contends they are intelligence agents. The U.S. also has complained about the detention or arrest of several Iranian-Americans in Iran in recent weeks. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said that issue was not on the U.S. agenda for Monday

SOURCE LINK




April 26, 2007 ~ U.S.: Administration Seeks To Engage Iran, Syria On Iraq

WASHINGTON, (RFE/RL) -- For months, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush has resisted the idea of holding talks with Iran and Syria, which he accuses of mischief in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq.

But this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, urged Iran and Syria to attend next week's talks on stabilizing Iraq. The meetings will be held on May 3 and 4 in the Egyptian resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh.

Rice said in an interview published on April 22 in Britain's "Financial Times" newspaper that Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki would miss what she called an "opportunity" if he couldn't attend next week's meeting.

The next day, Crocker, speaking in Baghdad, echoed Rice, stressing the importance of getting all Iraq's neighbors to discuss how to stabilize the country.

"What happens in Iraq doesn't occur in a vacuum," he said. "There is a region; there are neighbors; there is an international community. And over the next couple of weeks, I think we all are going to be very busy looking at both the regional and the international aspects of Iraq's situation with the conferences that will convene in Sharm el-Sheikh at the beginning of May."

Iraq has invited its neighbors to the meetings, as well as the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the G-8 industrialized nations. Iran has yet to accept the invitation, leading both Rice and Crocker to urge it, as well as Syria, to attend.

Until now, Washington has said it has nothing more to say to Syria about how it believes Damascus should behave. And it says it won't talk to Iran until it suspends uranium enrichment.

Some observers view the statements by Rice and Crocker as a shift in U.S. policy, and perhaps an opportunity for U.S. diplomats to discreetly probe Iranian and Syrian counterparts about eventually holding direct talks.

James Aborezk, who represented the U.S. state of South Dakota in the Senate from 1973 to 1979 and was the first American of Arab descent to serve in the U.S. Congress, has long been a critic of Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq.

Aborezk said he's surprised the administration is urging Iran and Syria to attend the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting, given that Bush has been, to use his word, "adamant" about not talking to representatives of the two countries.

"My guess is that Bush is desperate to get out of Iraq, saving his own ego, which is why he's staying in there so long anyhow," Aborezk said. "And he's looking for any way that anyone can help him get out."

Steven Welsh studies international security issues at the Center for Defense Information, a private policy research center in Washington. He says there are two important reasons that he doesn't believe there's been a shift in Washington's approach to Iran and Syria, particularly Iran.

"Over time, they've taken pains to distinguish between the Iraq issue and the issue of Iran developing nuclear weapons, for one thing," Welsh said. "The second point is [the meeting at Sharm el Sheikh is] a multilateral framework with Iran so that it doesn't simply get reduced to a U.S.-Iranian matter, but rather have the focus be squarely on building peace in Iraq and building Iraqi sovereignty and stable nationhood for Iraq."

Welsh says that if Iran were to be a subject, and not merely a participant, in the Sharm el-Sheikh talks, it should be scrutinized for any contributions it may have made to the sectarian violence in Iraq.

"Everyone thinks that engagement of all relevant parties is important, but I think that there's also the question of Iran being held to account to try to understand exactly what the Iranians are doing with respect to Iraq," Welsh said. "And I think it's important that that be a concern of the international community and not just a U.S.-versus-Iran matter."

Welsh recalls that in December, former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, one of the leaders of the Iraq Study Group of leading U.S. foreign policy advisers, urged the Bush administration to try to engage all of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran, in an effort to come up with a local solution to stabilizing Iraq.

And Welsh notes that Baker remarked there was a good chance that Iran or Syria might not joint the talks in good faith -- or might not join them at all. But at least, Baker said, the United States could say it tried to engage them.

TIME/CNN Blog: May 4, 2007 7:27

Conversations: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker

Posted by Scott MacLeod | Comments (3) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

You don't have to be an Iraq war supporter, or an I'm-not-going-to-cut-and-run guy like George Bush, to be very concerned about a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq. As Colin Powell said, You break it, you own it. As the Republican presidential candidates were debating Iraq and other issues Thursday night, I was asking U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker about whether the momentum for a withdrawal was undercutting American influence with the key Iraqi players. In short, Crocker (seen here giving a television interview at the Iraq conference in Sharm el Sheikh), is worried about it.

As I mentioned in a previous blog item, I've known Crocker for 25 years or so and consider him, as do his colleagues in the State Department, to be one of the finest diplomats in the American foreign service. Crocker knew my question wasn't partisan and that I wasn't trying to drag him into the domestic political wrangle over Iraq. Nevertheless, he started out cautiously by underlining this, saying, "First, I want to separate this completely from the U.S. political system and debate."

Crocker went into what has become a stock U.S. answer, that the debate is helpful in the sense that it concentrates Iraqi minds on the need to take advantage of U.S. security support (to "buy time" for national reconciliation, for example) while it lasts.

"To an extent, I think the debate is helpful because it makes it clear to Iraqis in and out of the government that there IS a problem here. That an administration that has put so much into the effort is under fire back home, and therefore, if you want us to be able to continue on in this effort, you gotta help by showing that the effort is registering some success."

Then, Crocker spoke about a darker flip side of the effect that the U.S. domestic pressure for withdrawal could have in Iraq:

"The concern I’ve got is that at a certain point the Iraqis may start to make different calculations. They know they are Iraqis. They’re going to be there no matter what. And Iraq is going to be there no matter what. If they come to the conclusion that the United States involvement is definitely a finite affair, and maybe much sooner rather than later, then my concern is that they start making calculations based on where they need to be to protect their vital interests, like their lives, the day after we’re gone. Because they are still going to be there. If they start calculating that way, I think it makes it even harder to get meaningful compromise and reconciliation. I have no evidence to suggest that is currently the case, but it is one of the things that worries me as I watch this go through."

One of the main components of national reconciliation is a dismantling of the Iraqi sectarian militias. I asked Crocker if the withdrawal talk didn't feed the militia mentality, the notion that you need an armed group made up of your own kind because you can't trust the national army to protect you. As Lebanon and other countries have learned, once you have entrenched militias and a weak central authority, you have a civil war that is hard to end.

"I’m afraid it does, yeah," Crocker replied.

The point is that whatever the merits of the invasion and occupation, it makes an enormous difference to the future of Iraq how the U.S. handles its exit. The risk is that bad American decisions will be made on the basis of inflamed domestic politics rather than on what is in the best, calculated interests of Iraq as well as the U.S. You can argue that Bush should not have let it come this far. Now it's important not only to examine the past mistakes but pursue a constructive way forward.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

Same Crocker Shit, Different Day

US and Iran hold rare direct talks on Iraq security

Arch enemies the United States and Iran launched a second round of rare face-to-face talks in Baghdad on Tuesday aimed at stemming the raging violence in Iraq.

The talks began at 10.15 am (0615 GMT) at the office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who began the meeting with a brief speech, according to an official at the Iraqi premier's office.

Photographs from the meeting showed the three delegations sitting around a triangular arrangement of tables in conference room in Maliki's offices inside Baghdad's heavily-fortified Green Zone.

The US was represented by its ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, while Tehran's envoy Hassan Kazemi Qomi headed the Iranian delegation in the talks attended by Iraqi officials.

As with a similar meeting held on May 28, officials said the talks would only focus on the security situation in Iraq, leaving aside a roster of other disputes between the United States and the Islamic republic.

May's meeting did not achieve any major breakthrough as both sides stuck to their familiar positions, with Tehran calling for a US withdrawal and Washington accusing Iran of fomenting violence.

The United States broke off relations with Iran in 1980, when Islamic revolutionaries seized the US embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days.

The two countries remain at loggerheads over a range of issues including Iran's nuclear programme, which the United States claims is aimed at producing nuclear weapons, an accusation vehemently denied by Tehran.

US forces also accuse Iran of arming and training Iraqi militias, allegations firmly denied by Tehran.

Relations have also been chilled by the detention in Iraq by US forces of at least five Iranian officials whom Tehran insists are diplomats, but Washington says are covert operatives from of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard.

Tehran in turn has detained four US-Iranians accused of espionage and harming national security by being linked to alleged US efforts to topple Iran's clerical authorities.

On Monday, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack ruled out raising the issue of the US-Iranians at the talks, saying their "primary focus is on Iraq security."

Tehran claimed that scholars Haleh Esfandiari and Kian Tajbakhsh, who were arrested in May, had exposed in television statements a US plot to overthrow Iran's Islamic authorities through a peaceful "soft revolution."

California-based businessman Ali Shakeri has also been detained. Parnaz Azima, a journalist for Radio Free Europe's Persian arm, is technically at liberty but has had her passport confiscated and cannot leave the country.

Asked whether Washington would miss a rare opportunity by not raising the fate of the four, McCormack said, "I think it is a missed opportunity for the Iranians not to allow these people to leave over the past two months."

Given the acrimonious backdrop, Iraqi lawmakers were divided in their expectations of Tuesday's meeting.

"Nothing much is expected from the US-Iran meeting," said lawmaker Mahmud Othman, a Kurd. "The US wants Iran to keep off Iraq and Iran wants US to leave Iraq. Each side has its own agenda," he said.

"Iraqis are insisting on such meetings because they themselves have failed to solve the problem. But Iraq's problems can be solved only by the Iraqis. They should work together."

But for Iraq's Shiite leaders, known for their close links with Shiite Iran, the meeting was a positive step.

"There is a strong will by the three parties to solve the problems and support the Iraqi government," said Humam Hammoudi, MP from the Shiite Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, a party known to be close to Iran.

Shiite MP Abbas al-Bayati said May's meeting had broken the "psychological barrier and the upcoming meeting will put in place a practical framework to help the three parties support the (Iraqi) political process."

Well....Grandma used to say You can hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets filled first:

U.S. hopes Iran meeting will show results this time

By Sue Pleming
Reuters
Monday, July 23, 2007; 10:46 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States hopes a meeting between the U.S. and Iranian envoys to Baghdad will push Tehran to change its ways in Iraq even though their last encounter made no difference, said U.S. officials on Monday.

"One would hope you would see a change in Iranian behavior. I can't tell you whether or not we will see that. It is up to the Iranians," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack of the proposed meeting between ambassadors in Baghdad on Tuesday.

"If they really do want to see a changed Iraq and they want to contribute to that, then they are going to have to match their actions with their words," he told reporters.

Washington accuses Iran of stoking violence in Iraq by backing militants. Iran denies the charges and blames the U.S.-led invasion of 2003 for the bloodshed.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said explosive devices blamed for the deaths of many U.S. troops in Iraq as well as other weaponry were still coming into Iraq from Iran.

"This is an opportune time, at the invitation of the Iraqi government, to revisit commitments Iran has made, saying that it believes in trying to stabilize Iraq. We have seen signs that we think need addressing," said Snow.

Tuesday's meeting between Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi-Qomi and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker follows a similar one in Baghdad on May 28 in what was the highest-profile contact in almost three decades between the two countries.

U.S. officials said the May meeting did not lead to any changes by Iran and it was decided that further talks were needed.

"It was the decision of Secretary (of State Condoleezza) Rice, talking with President (George W.) Bush ... that it was appropriate to take this opportunity to see if we could underscore with the Iranians that they need to change their behavior, despite, at this point, any lack of change in their behavior," said McCormack.

McCormack said it was not clear whether more meetings would follow, adding the United States did not want to meet the Iranians just for the sake of it.

SYRIA

In May, Rice met the foreign minister of another U.S. foe, Syria, to discuss how to stabilize Iraq. Washington also accuses Damascus of interfering in Iraq and of not doing enough to stop the flow of arms and fighters across the border.

McCormack said the Bush administration had not seen improvements by Syria either since Rice's meeting, but he still believed such talks were worthwhile.

"Sometimes this takes a gradual ramping up of pressure and keeping the spotlight on the need for these countries to play a positive role (in Iraq)," he said.

Tuesday's meeting would again be limited to discussing Iraq and would not touch on other issues such as Iran's nuclear ambitions or the detention of three Iranian-American academics by Tehran as well as a radio reporter prevented from returning to the United States.

Asked whether it was a missed opportunity not to discuss the detained Iranian-Americans during the envoys' meeting, McCormack replied: "It is a missed opportunity not to allow these people to leave (Iran) for the past two months."

U.S. authorities have been holding five Iranians in Iraq since January and Tehran has, in turn, demanded their release.

The U.S. military says the five are linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guards and were backing militants in Iraq while Iran has insisted they are diplomats.

U.S. Responses and Prospects


The Iraq Study Group final report’s first recommendation is that the United States include Iran (and Syria) in multilateral efforts to stabilize Iraq. Even before the Study Group report, U.S. officials, eager to try to stabilize Iraq, had tried to engage Iran on the issue.
In December 2005, then U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad stated that he had received President Bush’s approval to undertake negotiations with Iranian counterparts in an effort to enlist Iranian cooperation in Iraq. The United States and Iran agreed to such talks in March 2006, but U.S. officials opposed Iran’s efforts to expand such discussions to bilateral U.S.-Iran issues and no talks were held.

The Bush Administration did not initially endorse the Iraq Study Group recommendation on engaging Iran as part of a solution in Iraq, and instead launched several initiatives to limit Iran’s influence there. In his January 10, 2007, speech announcing a U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad, President Bush stated that the United States would “interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria ... [and would] seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
In that speech, he also announced deployment of an additional aircraft carrier group to the Persian Gulf and extended deployment of Patriot anti-missile batteries reportedly stationed in Kuwait and Qatar.
President Bush, in a January 31, 2007, press interview, reportedly confirmed prior reports that he had authorized U.S. forces in Iraq to treat Iranian agents in Iraq as combatants if they are observed actively assisting armed elements in Iraq.
However, in an apparent shift that might have been caused by Administration assessments that pressure on Iran was increasing U.S. leverage, the United States supported and attended an Iraq-sponsored regional conference in Baghdad on March 10, 2007.
Also attending were the Gulf monarchy states, Egypt, and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Iran and Syria attended, as did the United States, with most participants terming the discussions “constructive.” Both Secretary of State Rice and Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki attended the follow up meeting in Egypt during May 3-4, 2007, but held no substantive bilateral discussions, according to both sides.

However, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker attended the Egypt meeting and had some discussions with Mottaki’s subordinates, and the two countries subsequently agreed to hold talks in Baghdad on May28, 2007, confined to the Iraq issue and attended by Iraqi diplomats.
Despite the burgeoning U.S.-Iran diplomacy on Iraq, the Administration has continued to pressure Iran on Iraq issues. On March 24, 2007, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1747 on the Iran nuclear issue.

However, the Resolution has a provision banning arms exports by Iran, a provision clearly directed at Iran’s arms supplies to Iraq’s Shiite militias as well as to other pro-Iranian movements such as Lebanese Hezbollah. The Resolution could provide legitimacy for enhanced U.S. searches of truck or other traffic from Iran into Iraq under the umbrella of enforcing the Resolution.



IRAN: US CONCERNS AND POLICY RESPONSES






SEE ALSO:

American Ambassador Crocker Agrees Broadly with Genocidal Theocracy


Crocker Shit


Do Not Forsake Me, Oh My Darling!

Do not forsake me, oh my darling......

FOR EDIFICATION / BACKGROUND, PRECEDING RELATED POSTS:

Crocker Shit


Crocker Agrees Broadly....


Beast Rides Whore


Baker's Man



US Government Celebrates Memorial Day


"Uproot Israel"



Butcher, Baker, Oil Tick Fakers



The Men Who Sold the World

HIGH NOON WITH IRAN

BY: Kenneth R. Timmerman


If anyone still believes in the utility of talking to the Tehran regime, they should read the revealing comments made to the press by the Iranian and the U.S. ambassadors to Baghdad, just minutes after concluding what were billed as “historic” talks between the two governments on Monday. While the talks had “proceeded positively,” U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker told reporters that he had emphasized to the Iranians the need for concrete action on the ground. "I laid out before the Iranians a number of our direct, specific concerns about their behavior in Iraq, their support for militias that are fighting both the Iraqi security forces and coalition forces," Crocker said. "The fact (is) that a lot of the explosives and ammunitions that are used by these groups are coming in from Iran ... Such activities ... need to cease and ... we would be looking for results," he added.


Across the city, Iran’s ambassador Hassan Kazemi-Qomi just thumbed his nose. “We don’t take the American accusations seriously,” he said. It was the United States which bore “sore responsibility” for the violence in Iraq, he opined, noting that Iraq’s infrastructure had been “demolished by the American invaders.” If the U.S. was really serious about helping Iraq, he suggested that we take up Iran ’s offer to train and equip Iraqi security forces. (That way, the Iranians won’t have to steal Iraqi police uniforms any longer when they want to kill us).


In Tehran, Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki, crossed the tees and dotted the eyes. “We are hopeful that Washington’s realistic approach to the current issues in Iraq – by confessing its failed policy in Iraq and the region and by showing a determination in changing the policy – guarantees success of the talks and possible future talks,” he said.


So there you have it. If the United States wishes to have further talks with the Iranian regime, we must first admit 1) that our policies were wrong, and 2) that they have failed. Once that’s over with, hey – whatever you like!


I don’t know how deaf you have to be not to hear the message. Lee Hamilton, are you listening? As the Democrat half of the Baker-Hamilton commission that promoted talks with Tehran last fall, Lee Hamilton now finds himself in the embarrassing situation of seeing the fruits of the policy he promoted so arduously. Just talk to Tehran, he said. All they want is a little respect. They want a secure, integral Iraq, just as we do, he claimed.


We have lots of things in common. Lots! I give Mr. Hamilton credit for drinking his own Kool-Aid. As director of the Woodrow Wilson Center, a center-left think tank in Washington, he thought the Iranians were so eager for talks that he agreed to send the head of his center’s Iran programs to his native land, despite all the flap over the Iraq Study Group report. And so Haleh Esfandiareh, a former Communist (Tudeh) Party militant, who has long advocated “dialogue” between the U.S. and Iran, went to Tehran early this year, ostensibly to see her ailing mother.


When she tried to leave, regime thugs intercepted her taxi, “stole” her passport, and forced her to request a replacement travel document from the authorities. That led to her arrest, and recent “indictment” in Iran on charges of espionage. (For the record, I place the word “indictment” in quotation marks because the so-called “rule of law” in Iran is an arbitrary system that obeys the whims and orders of the ruling elite, not any objective legal standard created with the consent of the governed). Now, just to be clear about what’s going on. Haleh Esfandiareh has absolutely zero to do with any purported U.S. government program to promote a “velvet revolution” in Iran, as intelligence minister Hossein Mohseni-Ejei has claimed. Would that it were so!


On the contrary. She and many other left-wing Iran “experts” in Washington have been promoting closer ties between Tehran and Washington, not confrontation. So it’s more than ironic that the regime should arrest her. Seriously, if there were justice in this world, they would have picked up me or Michael Ledeen, or any number of Iranians who are working hard to organize women’s groups and student groups and labor organizations inside Iran, to stand up for their rights. The Tehran regime continues to dangle “talk of talks” to buy more time to finish their nuclear weapons development, and are taking U.S. hostages to use as bargaining chips. Meanwhile, they have expanded their terrorist networks inside Iraq , and are supplying Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs), money and conventional weapons to both Sunni and Shiite insurgent groups. (And finally, the U.S. military is being allowed by the Pentagon to say this in public).



My sources in Iran tell me that the regime plans to dramatically scale up the terrorist attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces this summer, and is contemplating ordering Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army to launch terrorist attacks in Kuwait, the first time that Sadr will have used his fighters outside of Iraq. So should we continue to talk to Tehran? Well, okay – but only if our diplomats can do so without buying every over-priced carpet they are offered. (Ambassador Ryan Crocker is someone who has got his priorities straight. After all, he knows a few things about Iranian terrorism, having received his baptism by fire on April 18, 1983 in Beirut, when Hezbollah operative Imad Mugniyeh blew up the U.S. embassy. That’s where I first met Crocker, who was still brushing dust off his clothes and his hair from the explosion). Iran’s goal is clear.



They seek to defeat us in Iraq, and to prevent Iraq from emerging as an strong, independent, federal state. Further down the road, they seek to drive the United States from the Persian Gulf, smash Israel, and ultimately destroy us.. To achieve these ends, they are furiously developing nuclear weapons. Even the IAEA has recognized Iran ’s nuclear weapons ambitions, although IAEA Secretary General Mohammed ElBaradei now says that we should give up trying to prevent them from going nuclear. He said that Iran’s recent progress in uranium enrichment should convince us that Iran’s nuclear program has become a fait accompli, and that efforts to make Iran pay a price for defying UN Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping their nuclear program have been “overtaken by events.”



That was too much even for the Washington Post, who chided ElBaradei this past Sunday for his response to Iran’s “aggressive and illegal behavior.” “[W]e can only marvel at the nerve of Mr. ElBaradei, an unelected international civil servant whose mission is to implement the decisions of the Security Council -- and who proposes to destroy the council's authority by having it simply drop binding resolutions,” the Post editorial board wrote. The Washington Post and many of the cooler heads in the foreign policy establishment now believe “there is no better alternative than returning to the United Nations Security Council” for further sanctions on Iran. While that may be necessary, a mere “ratcheting up” of sanctions will not be sufficient to keep Tehran’s murderers from striking again. I mentioned some of the stronger steps the UN could take, should the U.S. press hard enough, in this space recently.



But there is a better alternative, and it’s staring us right in the face. And that’s helping the growing pro-democracy movement inside Iran. Even as the Europeans continue to meet with Iranian government emissary Ali Larijani over their nuclear program later this week, it’s important to remember that economic leverage, however severe, will not deter this regime from building the bomb. “While the United States and the West are right to focus on terrorism and the regime’s nuclear programs, if they ignore the pro-democracy movement and human rights, they won’t get the results they want,” says Dr. Hossein Bagherzadeh, a spokesman for Solidarity Iran, a new Iranian coordinating council that aims to connect opposition groups in exile with activists working inside Iran.



The choice between appeasement and war is as bad as ever. But unlike the Washington Post, which believes that sanctions alone provide the alternative, I believe we have a better option. Solidarity Iran will be holding its third conference in two weeks time in Paris , when it plans to announce a plan of action that represents the first serious step toward forming a united Iranian opposition coalition in twenty-eight years. Stay tuned next week for more.

Iran-US May 28th negotiation, translation of video that follows:

Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Ghomi said Iran's concerns were brought up in a transparent way in the trilateral meeting in Baghdad between Iran, US and Iraq.


Speaking in a press conference after the meeting, Kazemi Ghomi said, "We made clear the role of occupiers in Iraq and reminded them their mistakes in running the affairs in Iraq." "We also told the Americans explicitly that the problems of Iraqi people will increase if the US continues its occupation of Iraq." "Our main reason for taking part in the negotiation was supporting the government of Prime Minister al-Maliki in Iraq and we are ready to offer any kind of assistance to Iraq Government to increase its ability in running the country," Ambassador Kazemi said.


Iranian ambassador described his meeting with his US counterpart as a success and said there were plans for future meetings. "Generally there was a positive (outcome) from this round of negotiations... (they) were an important first step between the two sides,' he told reporters.
'The Iraqi government said it will invite the two sides to resume negotiations and we received this proposal positively.'


Kazemi Qomi added, however, that he would have to consult with Tehran first, and one of his assistants said that no date had been set for the follow-up meeting. 'If it is possible, it will happen,' the assistant said.


Qomi said he told US ambassador Ryan Crocker about the importance of Iraqi forces assuming control of security in the country, and said that they needed to be provided with the necessary equipment to achieve this.


'During this negotiation,' he added, 'there was a proposal to form a security commission backed by the Iraqi government to help it defend the country.'


On the accusations raised by the US delegation about Iran's intervention in Iraq, the ambassador said,"This is not the first time that Americans raise that accusation and we gave appropriate responses to them in the meeting."


He said the three sides agreed on helping the government of Iraq that it can restore national sovereignty.


Stressing that the lack of security was the most serious problem in Iraq, the participants underlined the necessity of helping the legitimate government of Iraq to achieve the ability for establishing security in the country.


Kazemi said Monday's talks were the first step of a process and the Iraqi government has proposed the resumption of them in near future which should be examined in Tehran.
On the issue of Iranian diplomats captured in Iraq by US forces, Kazemi said that issue was not raised in the talks because "we believe the Iraqi government is responsible for it and should take the required steps in this regard."


On the terrorist group of MKO, Kazemi said based on the decisions taken by the government of Iraq, the members of the group must leave Iraq and Baghdad is determined to implement its decisions.

(more)






IRAN: 14,635 ARRESTED IN MORALISATION CAMPAIGN

Tehran, 29 May (AKI) - In the four weeks since a highly publicised government moralisation campaign kicked off, 14,635 people were temporarily detained under strict new Islamic dress code laws punishing offenders with arrest. Another 67,000 people were reprimanded by police, according to a tally kept by the local Rooz daily based on police statements. Only in airports and train stations some 1,115 people, mostly women, were arrested while 17,135 were not allowed to board planes or trains as they were not dressed properly.

VIDEO: Women: Life in Iran

Crocker Shit

GENOCIDAL THEOCRASSHOLE

I still have not found a transcript of the deer in the headlights Crocker presser I saw on CNN very early yesterday morning, but when I do I'll add it here.

RYAN CROCKER

PAY VERY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE LANGUAGE.. in this case and in ALL THINGS.

Here is what I meant:

If you understand boxing ....there is a ring generalmanship involved in being an effective fighter.

In other words, he who controls the ring with his body dictates the parameters and the space of the fight itself - the person showing ring generalmanship determines the size and shape of the battle and where it will be fought, how much room the opponent has to move, and various other factors.

You can read this sort of ring generalmanship in language if you are looking for it.

Try it out. You tell me who is controlling this ring:

HE WHO CONTROLS LANGUAGE CONTROLS THOUGHT

It is not for no reason Uncle Chom is a linguist...

Briefing With U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker on His Meeting With Iranian Officials

5/28/07

Via Teleconference

OPERATOR: Hello, and welcome to today's teleconference. At the request of the company, this conference is being recorded. Mr. Casey, you may begin.

MR. CASEY: Okay, thank you, everyone, for joining us. Sorry it's taken us a few minutes to get to you. Appreciate you joining us on Memorial Day and appreciate having with us as well Ambassador Ryan Crocker from Baghdad. As you know, he has met today with his Iranian counterpart to discuss some of the common concerns and issues that the United States and Iran have related to Iraq. And I'll just turn it over to you, Ryan, let you make a couple of introductory remarks, and then we'll go right to questions.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Thanks, Tom.

[SNIP]

I would repeat what I said earlier, that I would call these discussions businesslike. At the level of policy and principle, the Iranian position, as articulated by the Iranian Ambassador, was very close to our own: support for a stable, secure, democratic, federal Iraq that is able to control its borders, is at peace with its neighbors and is bringing prosperity to its citizens. Though again, on that level, there was fairly broad agreement.

[SNIP]

We told the Iranians today that their support for armed militia groups that are challenging the authority of the Iraqi Government and attacking coalition soldiers needs to stop, and we were quite, quite clear on that point.

The final thing I'd say before I go to your questions is that the Iraqi side indicated that they would want to issue an invitation for another meeting sometime in the near future. Once we receive that invitation, obviously we'll give it close consideration, but nothing was fixed in this meeting with respect to a follow-on meeting. And with that, I'm happy to take your questions.

Our first question comes from:

QUESTION: Sue Pleming, Reuters. Yes, hello. I wonder, do you think that this meeting marks a sort of a change in your relationship, in the relationship between the United States and Iran? And did you discuss at all that the next meeting could be at a ministerial level or higher than the envoy level?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Thank you for asking that. The subjects and focus of the meeting was Iraq and how the United States and Iran can help and support the government and people of Iraq in improving conditions here, particularly security conditions. There was no other item on the agenda; nothing else was discussed.

AGAIN ......because we were ordered very clearly before hand we were not allowed to speak on any other subject. ORDERED and ALLOWED. Yes.

[SNIP]

QUESTION: What was the -- you said the mood was businesslike. I mean, is this someone you think you can do business with? Do you think that they will act on the requests that you made in terms of trying to reduce violence and stopping support for militias?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Well, that is what we need to see. Again, we were quite clear on what we see on the ground and quite clear in describing how damaging we believe it is to Iraq's own efforts to establish security and stability, and that it needs to stop. So we'll obviously be watching closely to see what the results are.

QUESTION: Thanks.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from:

QUESTION: Jonathan Beale, BBC. Thank you, Ambassador. You said no other issues were discussed, so I take it that you didn't raise the issue of the Iranian Americans who have been arrested by Tehran. And also, I'd just like to ask you when you said that when you told them that their policy was inconsistent with their actions, was there any acknowledgement that there was an inconsistency there, that they had been involved in supporting militants -- militia in training and arms?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: On the first, you're right; the meeting was exclusively about Iraq. We're dealing with the issue of the detained American citizens via the Swiss Government, which is our diplomatic -- formal diplomatic channel to the Iranians. And through that channel, we've made it clear that the Iranians should let these private citizens go; they are not a party to any policy differences between our governments. But that was not on the agenda here in Baghdad today.

And remind me -- it's been a long day -- what the second part was?

QUESTION: The second part was about -- you mentioned the inconsistency between the states policy of Iran and their actions. I think I'm just trying to get to whether there was any acknowledgement that there may have been inconsistency, any acknowledgement that they were involved in supporting militants.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: No, there was no acknowledgment. In fact, there was very little comment on the issue from the Iranian delegates. They reserved their right to respond at some point in the future, but made no detailed response during our discussions today.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from:

QUESTION: Eli Lake, New York Sun. Hi, Ambassador Crocker. I wanted to ask if you could get into any more detail about the presentation that you made to the Iranians. And also, can you give us a sense -- I mean, there have been talks with the Iranians on and off for a long time at certain levels in Iraq. What gives you -- do you have any sense of -- are more optimistic that this time they'll stop what you say they are doing?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Well, on the first part, I laid out the fact that we have solid evidence linking Iran to the support of armed militant groups that are attacking our soldiers, Iraqi security forces and innocent civilians. We made clear we are aware that Iraq is supplying -- Iran is supplying such groups with arms and ammunition and explosives, including explosively formed projectiles; that we know this, that we know the Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force is the lead instrument in pursuing this policy, and that they need to stop this behavior that is killing our soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and innocent Iraqis.

This was not a presentation of judicial quality evidence. It was simply making it clear to the Iraqi -- the Iranians that we know what they're doing. They already presumably know what they're doing, so this was a way of making it clear that we know what they're up to.

In terms of contacts, you know, there have been very brief contacts here in Baghdad in March at a working level meeting of neighboring countries and others, and a brief contact when I was in Sharm el-Sheikh but -- earlier this month. But essentially, we have not been in direct discussions with the Iranians.

Whether that will actually produce results, I think right now is up to them whether they choose to align their behavior on the ground with their stated policy, because right now it isn't.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up? Can you say what groups you said they were providing the explosives to and can you say whether you're -- when you say armed militant groups attacking our soldiers and coalition forces, are you referring to groups that we would consider Sunni groups?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: We believe that the Iranians have variously supported both Sunni insurgent groups that are attacking us, as well as radical Shia groups such as some elements of the Jaish al-Mahdi.

QUESTION: Barbara Slavin of USA Today. Hi, Ryan.

QUESTION: Thanks for doing this. I wanted to ask, the way you portray this is you say it's not bilateral. I mean, did we do this really just because the Iraqis were urging us to do this? Did we agree to do this because the Iraq Study Group proposed it? Why now, when there had been a reluctance to have these kinds of meetings so much in the past?

And also just on the atmospherics, was there anyone in the room that you had met before? How would you compare this with the talks that you conducted that were not publicized back in 2001 and 2002? Did you speak in English? Did you eat together?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Okay. On the first, we see these talks as growing out of the neighbors conference initiative, that you remember in March there was a brief direct exchange here in Baghdad. We had another brief direct exchange in Sharm el-Sheikh in which we discussed the possibility of sitting down more formally. The Iraqis made clear that they thought that would be a good step, so we've done it. But again, the progression is it flows out of the neighbors conference initiative. That got started in March and so here we are at the end of May having this meeting. As I noted, the Iraqis did urge it and that's obviously -- we take their positions on this and other matters, obviously, very seriously. But it really fits in, I think, to the neighbors conference initiative.

No, I had not previously met any of the members of the Iranian delegation. The talks that we had had previously on Afghanistan were, I think, you know, less formal in nature. They were under UN auspices rather than any governmental auspices, and I think for those reasons maybe a little less formal in their nature than we were today.

NO ANSWER AT ALL ON BAKER, DIPLOBABBLING TURNSPEAK ALL OF IT

QUESTION: Did you speak in English? Did you break bread together?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: We -- well, we drank tea together. How's that? Actually, a variety of languages; English, Farsi and Arabic were all in play at various times.

[SNIP]

QUESTION: And if I could just follow on that, you said you'll be watching to see what action is taken. What are you anticipating or what will you specifically be watching for?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Well, what we would obviously like to see and I think the Iraqis clearly would like to see is action by Iran on the ground to bring what it's actually doing in line with its stated policy. Its stated policy is very close to our own. Their actions don't support the policy. That's what we'd like to see change: the support for the militants and so forth that I was describing earlier.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from:

QUESTION: Zane Verjee, CNN. Thank you, Ambassador Crocker. Could you give us a little bit more detail on what this idea of a three-way mechanism is that Iran proposed to you in the meeting? What specifically did they propose? Can you give us details about that?

And secondly, was there any more ground that you wanted to cover in this meeting but you didn't?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: The Iranians proposed a security mechanism to deal with issues relating to security, and that's about all the detail that there was. My comment at the time was that that sounded very much like the meeting that we were sitting in, since we had agreed that since we had reasonably good alignment at the level of policy and principle, the area that required our focus was security both because it is a critical concern for Iraq and because there we obviously have differences. So it was not apparent to me exactly what the distinction was between what they were proposing and what we were already doing.

And again, you'll have to forgive me. I have managed to forget the second part of your question.

NO ANSWER ON TRILATERAL MECHANISM AND THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE USED, JUST MORE DIPLOBABBLING DISSEMBLING.

[SNIP]

QUESTION: Were you disappointed with the extent of their response, at least detailing to you their own perceptions, for example, on the security mechanism? Would you characterize it that way? Were you a little bit disappointed?

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: I wouldn't say I was disappointed. I think it would not have been reasonable to expect that going into this meeting that a single meeting was going to produce instant, measurable, positive results. I just don't -- I didn't think that was realistic before and therefore I'm not particularly disappointed now.

I was, you know, again, somewhat encouraged that the Iranians took the opportunity to lay out their policy in positive terms. And again, as I said, it matched pretty closely to our own. They obviously could have come at this in a variety of different ways, you know, many of them negative. They didn't do that. They led with a positive policy declaration. So, you know, I found that, you know, somewhat encouraging. I wouldn't make a huge amount out of this single meeting and what was said in it either positive or negative. Again, what really counts is what actually happens that affects for the better security in Iraq.

[SNIP]

MR. CASEY: Okay, I think we've got time maybe for just one more here, so why don't we take the last question.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from:

QUESTION: Guy Dinmore, Financial Times. Ambassador, thank you very much. Guy Dinmore from the FT here. At the weekend, Muqtada al-Sadr gave this very powerful speech, his first appearance in some months. Can you say whether or not you discussed his role in Iraq and his relationship with Iran? And did the Iranians raise at all what they have said in public, which is that they have accused both U.S. and British forces of also destabilizing Iran across the border by supporting anti-Iranian elements? Thank you very much.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Let's see. Working back to front, no, the Iranians did not raise in this meeting their public accusations of the last day or so.

With respect to Sadr, they did not address him at all. I addressed the problem of Iranian -- specifically Quds Force -- support for radical elements in the Jaish al-Mahdi. As you know, Guy, the Sadrist movement is a highly diversified one, not to say fragmented, and it is by no means clear to me, for example, that Muqtada al-Sadr has control over some of these elements in Jaish al-Mahdi. But it's pretty clear to us that the Iranians do.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CASEY: Okay. And I think with that, Ambassador Crocker, thank you again very much for taking the time to talk with everyone today. And to all of you out there, thanks for joining us and I hope that we all enjoy the rest of Memorial Day weekend. Talk to you all later.

AMBASSADOR CROCKER: Thanks, Tom. Thank you, all.

Following are excerpts from a public address delivered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on various Iranian TV channels on May 24, 2007:

Esfahan TV (Iran)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Look at the Zionist regime. For 60 years, is has been turning an entire people into refugees. It attacks them on a daily basis. They kill the women and children in their homes. Not only do some of the superpowers keep silent, without protesting, but they even smile in approval and in support. Along they came and occupied Palestine, turning the Palestinian people into refugees, oppressing them for 60 years in order to...

Crowd chants: Death to Israel... Death to Israel...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: They did this in order to establish a safe base, from which they would get all the peoples of the region under their rule. But thanks to your movement and the sacred fighting of the martyrs, Islamic revival and monotheistic belief have spread throughout the world, and today, the Palestinian people is uprising. In your presence, I would like to address a few words to the occupying Zionist regime and its supporters. Listen very carefully. I would like to tell you that if you think that just like 60 years ago, the Palestinian people and the peoples of the region are asleep, you are wrong. Today the peoples have awoken. If you believe that by oppressing the Palestinian people, and by bombing and terrorizing the Palestinian leaders, and by trying to "calm things down" in Palestine, as you call it, you can prepare the ground for a renewed attack against courageous Lebanon in the summer – let me tell you that you are severely mistaken.

Let me tell you that if this year you repeat the despicable mistake of last year, the ocean of the rage of the peoples of the region will surge and will eradicate the Zionist regime.

Crowd chants: Allah Akbar

Allah Akbar

[...]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: With the grace of God, we have almost reached the end of the path where we can take complete advantage of all nuclear capabilities. We are very near the summit. The resistance of the enemies grows weaker every day. If last year, they could place obstacles in our path to the level of ten units – this year, with God's grace, and thanks to your unity and steadfastness, they could not even do this to a level of two units. If last year, the strength of the Iranian peoples was to the level of ten units - let the world know that this year, our strength has reached a level of over 100 units.

[...]

They want to intensify their sanctions now. They said 50 individuals are banned from traveling, and now they want to say 500. Let them say 70 million... What do we care... We don't want to travel to their countries anyway. When have we ever asked to travel to Western countries? If they don't want to sell us their merchandise – fine. To hell with them. We're happy they won't sell it to us. They have been pressuring us for 28 years. Has this harmed us in any way? They still don't understand that if they had not pressured us, and if they had given us all these products – we wouldn't be where we are today in terms of progress. We would lag behind by 20 years.

[...]

Now they are mustering all their power, in order to cause some commotion – some resolution, some pressure, some uproar... But let me tell you that with the help of God, they are done for. Like a battery about to run out, they muster the remainder of their power but Allah willing, nothing will happen. We've passed that. Wait one month, two months, three months... Allah willing, as soon as possible, we will pass that. Their situation is much worse than one can imagine. Their foundations are shaking. Nobody is with them. They though that if they used threats, people here would withdraw voluntarily. When they used threats nobody withdrew. When they used their fist – it boomeranged back at them. What's left for them to say? A few months ago, they threatened us militarily. Do you remember? They specified the date. They said: "On March 27, at 5 a.m., we will bomb these 20 sites." From this position of making military threats, they've got themselves to the point where they want to have talks with us, and they say: "It wasn't us making threats."

VIDEO at LGF