Iraq talks could pave road home for America

The Iranian-Syrian-US-Iraqi talks in Baghdad at the weekend might - and it's a very flimsy "might" - be the beginning of America's road home from its disastrous invasion and occupation of Mesopotamia.

The shouting match between Washington's envoy, David Satterfield, and his Iranian opposite number, Abbas Araghchi, should have been warning enough for the Americans that their negotiations will not be easy - and there will, of course, be a price to be paid. An end to the nuclear "crisis" with Iran? Abandonment of the tribunal into the murder of Lebanese former prime minister Rafik Hariri for whom many blame Syria? But what price would America not pay to scramble out of Iraq?

As if to emphasise the anarchy the delegates were discussing in Baghdad, a suicide car bomber yesterday crashed into a lorry carrying Shia pilgrims back from Kerbala, killing 32 of them. Having passed unscathed through the large Sunni districts around Hilla to the south of the capital, they thought they were safe when they reached the centre of Baghdad. But that was where the car bomber was waiting for them, ramming his vehicle into the tailgate of the truck which was loaded with up to 70 men and boys. Many of them were burned to death.

Interestingly, it was the Iranian Foreign Ministry - rather than the US State Department - which went out of its way to praise the Baghdad talks as a first step to restore security in Iraq. "Leaving security affairs to the Iraqi government, arranging a timetable for the departure of foreign forces, and taking an impartial approach to all terrorist groups can bring peace and security," the ministry's spokesman, Mohamed Ali Hosseini, said yesterday. A proposed second round of talks - in Baghdad or Istanbul - may involve Iran's Foreign Minister.

But old habits die hard. During Saturday's talks, Mr Satterfield pointed to his briefcase, claiming it contained documents that proved Iran was arming Shia militias in Iraq, a remark that earned him a stinging rebuke from the Iranian envoy. "Your accusations are merely a cover for your failures in Iraq," Mr Aragchi replied.

The Americans have been asserting for some weeks that Iranian technology has been used in bombs that have killed up to 170 American and other foreign troops in Iraq. Yet their "evidence" does not appear to prove any such thing; Iraq is awash with weapons and explosives and other bomb-making materials and it seems unlikely Shia gunmen need any training from the Iranians.

But the whole anti-Iranian stance of the US administration over Iraq does not appear to make much sense. It accuses Tehran of interfering in the work of the Iraqi government - despite the fact the largest parties in the Iraqi government were born and nurtured in Iran. In other words, Iran is already "in" Baghdad and its protégés are running the show from the Green Zone close to the Foreign Ministry where this weekend's talks were held.

For Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, to say "the future of Iraq and the Middle East is the defining issue of our time" was stating the obvious but his appeal to Syria and Iran to help the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki brought forth further Iranian demands for an American withdrawal.

All of Iraq's neighbours were represented at the talks - Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait - as well as the UN and the Arab League, Russia, France, Britain, China, Bahrain and Egypt.

"Violence in Iraq is good for no country in the region," Mr Aragchi, the Iranian envoy, remarked. "Security of Iraq is our security and stability in Iraq is a necessity for peace and security in the region ... Regarding security, we have channels that we can put to use." What these "channels" were, Mr Aragchi did not say.

While Iran would be happy to see the Americans retreat in humiliation from Iraq, it also has a clear strategic interest in a US withdrawal. With US forces in Afghanistan - and operating clandestinely inside Pakistan - as well as in Iraq and the former Soviet Muslim republics, Iran is virtually surrounded by American firepower. Add to this the US fleet in the Gulf and it's not difficult to see how Iran might see itself as endangered as the Americans feel in Iraq.