Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has returned to Tehran after his landmark two-day visit to Iraq. Feted and warmly welcomed with military bands and honor guards on his arrival in Baghdad, it’s hard to believe such a reception would be laid on for the man that Washington accuses of being largely responsible for destabilizing Iraq.
How is it, Williams asked, that after 160,000 troops and 4,000 dead, Western leaders have to sneak in and out of Iraq under cover of secrecy, “while Iran, the other part of the alleged Axis of Evil, can send its president along a flower strewn route in a motorcade through the streets of Baghdad, and be greeting by the government that the US troops have supposedly put in power?”
Contrasting Ahmadinejad’s colorful arrival in Iraq, head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, arrived in Baghdad on an unannounced visit, with his itinerary a closely guarded secret.
Notwithstanding two wars, years of crippling sanctions, and continued occupation, Washington accuses Tehran of “meddling” and “interfering” in Iraq, a country with which it shares a 1,500 kilometer border.
Iran denies charges that it has been supplying weapons to any groups in Iraq, an assertion flatly rejected by Washington. With the entire region awash with weapons combined with a long and porous border, the possibility that sympathetic or criminal elements might be smuggling guns and ammunition is a possibility that, apparently, has not occurred to the Pentagon and White House analysts.
Painting Iran as the culprit for continued instability in Iraq, on the other hand, appears to suit Washington policymakers.
“It’s a claim the Bush administration is going to make because it wants to avoid confronting the reality that it actually has to talk to the Iranian leadership and come to some sensible provisions for the region. It’s very difficult for them to admit that. They are ideologically incapable of it at the moment,” Williams told PressTV.
Government statements from Baghdad say talks between Ahmadinejad and Iraqi leaders focused mainly on economic, political and security issues – all areas where the United States has considerable influence or vested interests.
In a separate interview, Mahmoud Othman, member of the Iraqi Council of Representatives, told PressTV’s Middle East Today that with warnings from Washington to be wary of Iran on the one hand, and accusations from Tehran that the United States is to blame for the insecurity in Iraq on the other, Baghdad needs to tread a fine line in order to maintain a balance.
“I think the Iraqi leadership is stuck in between the conflict between Iran and America and obviously both countries have their influence in Iraq. That is why Iraq has tried to arrange meetings between the two countries,” he said.
Speaking on the same edition of Middle East Today, Professor of Politics and head of the Department of American Studies at Tehran University, Seyed Mohammad Marandi said from Tehran’s perspective it seems Washington is determined to maintain its hostile policy towards Iran.
“But this is not really in the interests of the United States,” he said, “If Iraq is to stabilize, and if the American government wants Iraq to stabilize, then the most important neighbor Iraq has is Iran because of its very long borders and because of the economic potential that exists between the two countries.”
“I don’t think it’s the beginning of a rapprochement in itself,” he told PressTV News, “I think wiser heads in Washington might draw some lessons from it and say we really have to deal with this.”
Williams noted that Iran has previously been remarkably cooperative in both Afghanistan against the Taliban and in Iraq against Saddam Hussein, “and the United States at the time did not grasp those opportunities.”