Eine brisante Analyse des saudischen Kommentators Daoud Shirian in der liberalen aranischen Tageszeitung Al Hayat. Bei der Irak-Konferenz in Scharm-El-Scheich sollen die Iraner den Amerikanern einen Deal unterbreitet haben:
The Iranians seemed to have an attitude rejecting any US presence and advocating the need to liberate Iraq from the oppressive US occupation.
But the reality is quite different. For the items in the Iranian paper submitted in the Sharm el-Sheikh conference depict a different picture; indicate a possible Iranian-American deal, and reflect an Iranian desire to get a foothold in Iraq with American approval.
The Iranians are giving insinuations to the US administration that they will accept the US occupation and assume the role of a policeman to protect this presence if Washington is willing to reach an agreement with them on the nuclear file and reconsider its position towards the Lebanese crisis and Hizbullah weapons. In return, Tehran is ready to reject any unplanned withdrawal of US troops and support the presence of these forces in bases and camps inside Iraq.
Tehran also has no objection to „providing any assistance that would later contribute to an honorable withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq“. Furthermore, Tehran disregards the fact that the occupation is the cause of the problem, considers the Iraqi crisis from a security, rather than political, standpoint, focuses on the issue of armed groups, consolidates sectarian pro rata and turns a blind eye to government-backed militias.Tehran’s announcement of its readiness to help the government control these militias is nothing but a red herring. The paper is riddled with flagrant political contradictions, the simplest example of which was expressing support for Maliki’s government, which defends the occupation and considers its presence to be owing to its request. The Iranian paper deals with the Iraqi issue as an internal crisis and a security breach.
There is no doubt that the fierce backstage courtship between Tehran and Washington in Sharm el-Sheikh is not a media fantasy. The conference was exploited by the Americans as an opportunity to get closer to the Iranians and exchange gestures in a public forum, therefore the failure to arrange a meeting between Rice and Muttaqi has been blown out of all proportions whereas a meeting between the US Ambassador in Iraq and the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister took place.
It was announced that US experts joined the Syrian-Iraqi committee to open channels of dialogue with Iran under a veneer of security provided by Syria. Moreover, the Iranian paper was tantamount to a blueprint for a potential US-Iranian understanding.
Rice’s meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem was a US signal of Washington’s willingness to listen to the Iranian point of view. Therefore the US Secretary of State was sincere in refuting the criticism of the Democrats, who accused the Bush administration of duplicity, because the White House criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Damascus, while the Secretary of State held a meeting with Muallem.
She met with the Syrian minister in his capacity as mediator between the administration and Tehran, not as the Syrian Foreign Minister. Washington does not intend to open channels with Damascus at the present time. Improvement in US-Syrian relations is deferred until the Iranian-US nuptials.