Tehran Postpones Fourth Round of U.S.-Iran Talks
Fox News, February 19, 2008
BY: FNC Foreign Affairs Analyst Alireza Jafarzadeh
Transcript
The fourth round of U.S.-Iran
talks over Iraq’s security, originally scheduled to take
place in December of last year in Baghdad, was again
postponed by Tehran for “technical” reasons. Let’s not
forget that the U.S. embassy in Baghdad has on numerous
times expressed the complete readiness of the American side
for these talks. Are ayatollahs in Tehran playing
hard-to-get with Washington?
Speculations on reasons behind Tehran’s reluctance abound.
Some Iraqi officials have blamed the release of the National
Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program for the
postponements saying the report has emboldened Tehran by
taking the pressure off ayatollahs’ backs. Still, there are
others who suggest that Tehran will wait until after
Ahmadinejad completes his visit to Iraq scheduled for March
2, to resume the talks.
Some argue that intense political maneuvering in Iran, weeks
before the key parliamentary elections is the main culprit.
In recent weeks, mullah’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i, has
been making rounds around the country making negotiations
with the “Great Satan,” a central election issue and a
litmus test of loyalty to the “principals of revolution.” It
would be only logical to conclude that Khamene'i, siding
with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, could ill
afford to give the go-ahead for talks with Washington when
he has made it a huge political taboo at home.
Related
Regardless of reasons behind Tehran’s cancellation of the
talks, one basic fact should be fully understood when it
comes to the issue of negotiations with Tehran: Ayatollahs
have no intention of improving security in Iraq and ending
their nefarious meddling there. Indeed, after three rounds
of Washington-Tehran talks, not only the regime has not
scaled down any aspect of its meddling, it has intensified
its political, intelligence, terrorist, and propaganda
campaign in Iraq. Given Tehran’s massive investment in Iraq
to date, the probability that it could be negotiated to give
up its network in Iraq and decommission its Qods Force is
next to zero.
The destruction that Tehran has been able to level at Iraq
reveals the depth of ayatollahs’ commitment in destabilizing
their neighbor to the west. According to my sources, Tehran
is spending at least $70 million per month arming, training,
and funding Iraqi militias fomenting sectarian violence and
attacking coalition troops.
The fact is that the two sides come to the table with a
diametrically opposing set of goals. Tehran seeks to
escalate violence and further subvert the country while
Washington intends to reduce tension and stabilize the
nation. One seeks to establish a theocratic state modeled
after its own, and the other a secular Iraq.
Tehran’s multi-pronged campaign in Iraq has two primary
objectives; both having to do with its survival. Ayatollahs’
first objective is the expulsion out of Iraq of Iran's main
opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, whose
members reside in Ashraf City, 60 miles north of Baghdad in
the Diyala Province. Tehran correctly believes that the
3,800 members of the anti-fundamentalist Muslim MEK have
played a significant role in unifying the democratic and
secular voices of Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis against its
influence in Iraq. The clerical regime therefore views the
MEK as the biggest obstacle to fulfilling its ambition of
establishing a sister Islamic republic in Iraq.
The MEK has been instrumental in exposing the Qods Force’s
clandestine terror network in Iraq. The group's members in
Ashraf City, Iraq are now protected by the United States
military as "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva
Convention. Administration officials and U.S. military
commanders in Iraq have acknowledged that the MEK has been
the most helpful on neutralizing Tehran's covert mission in
Iraq. Many moderate Iraqi politicians, including some key
members of the Iraqi Parliament, believe that the MEK in
Ashraf City is an unrivaled catalyst for conflict resolution
and stability in Iraq.
Equally important, Iran's other objective is to force the
U.S. military out of Iraq and the creation of a huge
political and security vacuum there which is essential for
the success of Iran's ultimate goal of establishing a
clients state in Iraq.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury addressed Tehran’s
agenda in a statement following the blacklisting of three
Tehran-backed persons and entities for fomenting terror and
murdering American and coalition forces in Iraq. The
Treasury’s January 9 statement declared that to advance its
strategic interests, the regime in Tehran uses the Qods
Force as its “primary mechanism for cultivating and
supporting terrorists and Islamic militants.”
It added that Iran-sponsored terror networks in Iraq have
been created for not only affecting “the Iraqi political
process in Iran's favor,” but “to fight U.S. forces” and
eliminating “Iraqi politicians opposed to Iran's influence.”
The statement explained that “In an effort to cause
instability in Iraq,” Iran-backed terrorist networks “were
actively targeting Iraqi government officials, Sunni
community leaders, and anyone who cooperated with Coalition
Forces.”
And last week, David Satterfield, the U.S. State
Department's Iraq coordinator, told reporters that "We see
an Iran intent on continuing to promote violence within
Iraq, which is directly contradictory to Iran's public
pledge of support for a stable, peaceful, sovereign Iraq.”
He added that "We very much believe that Iran wishes to see
the forced departure of foreign forces, particularly U.S.
forces, from Iraq in the most humiliating and devastating
manner possible."
Against this backdrop, it would be highly naïve, if not
unforgivably reckless, to entertain the notion that
ayatollahs would ever show good will and genuinely cooperate
for Iraq’s security. Negotiations, while essential for
resolving conflicts diplomatically, in Tehran’s case have a
proven record of failure. They have emboldened the
ayatollahs and afforded them time and diplomatic cover to
advance their sinister agenda. Every inch that the U.S.
concedes is interpreted in Tehran as a sign of weakness
which in turn invites more terrorism and sectarian violence.
Iraq will be secure and stable when Iran's influence is cut
off. To accomplish that, the United States should be ready
to take drastic measures. It can start by stepping up the
arrest of the regime's agents in Iraq; cutting off smuggling
routes for weapons, explosives and agents; disarming the
Shiite militias; and purging the Iraqi government of
Tehran's proxies — essentially dismantling Iran's network in
Iraq. This must be coupled with empowering the moderate
voices among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.
Alireza Jafarzadeh is the author of
The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming
Nuclear Crisis (Palgrave: February 2008).
Jafarzadeh has revealed Iran's terrorist network in Iraq and
its terror training camps since 2003. He first disclosed the
existence of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility and the
Arak heavy water facility in August 2002.
Until August 2003, Jafarzadeh acted for a dozen years as the
chief congressional liaison and media spokesman for the U.S.
representative office of Iran's parliament in exile, the
National Council of
Resistance of Iran.
