Iraqi PM says links with Iran are developing
TEHRAN —
Relations between Iraq and Iran are developing in a number of ways, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said during a visit to Iran on Saturday.
“The exchange of high ranking visits between the two country’s officials shows that the bilateral relations are developing in different areas,” Maliki said after a meeting with Iran’s first vice-president, Parviz Davoudi, according to the Iraqi leader’s office.
Maliki, who arrived on Saturday for a two-day visit, also met Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
In the meeting, Ahmadinejad prioritised “regional cooperation to establish security in the region,” state television website reported.
“Our Islamic and humane duty requires that we always stand by the Iraqi nation,” he was quoted as saying.
The Iranian president also said that the two countries can “rapidly boost relations and bilateral trade with the wisdom and will of their leaders.”
Maliki is also scheduled to meet with Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.
Ministerial members of Maliki’s delegation immediately went into talks with their Iranian commerce, power and transportation counterparts, the official IRNA news agency said.
The two sides agreed to boost bilateral trade from the current level of about $5 billion, with Maliki urging greater Iranian investment for his war-battered country.
“After elevating security and freeing Iraq from sectarian fighting, it is time to work hard to reconstruct the country and there is a need for companies from neighboring nations to take on reconstruction projects,” Maliki said.
Iran and Shiite-majority Iraq waged a war between 1980 and 1988 in which around one million people died but ties have warmed considerably since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated regime in 2003 by U.S.-led forces.
Maliki’s fourth visit to Iran since he took office in 2006 is his first since the Dec 14 signing of a bilateral security agreement for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq until the end of 2011—a deal that irked Tehran.
The Iraqi premier’s trip was initially scheduled for late December.
Wire reports
Order by Time Order by Popularity
14 Comments
Login to comment
0
some14some
Desirable or undesirable? difficult to say till we hear from the White House.
0
YuriOtani
I wonder what they have in common? Perhaps 1/3 of the country is the same religion as Iran. Can understand why Iraq wants friendly relations but there are some real issues between them. Well they are talking which is usually a good thing. With the departure of American troops perhaps there will be less pressure between them.
0
bebert
Acutally, 60% or more of Iraqis are Shiite and clearly, the real winner of the Iraq war is Iran.
What a kick of sand in the face this represents to Bush, his neo-con handlers and Israel. It almost makes the war worthwhile - if you forget the 4,000+ troops dead, tens of thousands wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted.
0
SushiSake3
"Iraqi PM says links with Iran are developing"
The lights were buring late at Bush HQ in Washington to fabricate more 'connection.'.
Yup, this 'has all the hallmarks of [fill in name of bad guys]' or something we have heard ad nauseum before.....
Too funny, and some people still buy this crap. :-)
0
adaydream
How gives a hoot what the Whitehouse has to say about it?
It's Iraq's decision and their weight to bear, good or bad.
But if the Whitehouse say anything at all against this new relationship, it's their fault.
I hope Iraq and Iran have a better relationship now then before. < :-)
0
Triumvere
“Our Islamic and humane duty requires that we always stand by the Iraqi nation,” he was quoted as saying.
Iraq and Iran are neighbors, they need to have a relation ship. Hopefullly it will be as peers, rather than as puppet and master.
0
Triumvere
errr, "special"
lost an "l" there
0
adaydream
So you're saying that the government of Iran sent IEDs into Iraq?
I'd like to see your proof/links. < :-)
0
Triumvere
Adaydream,
Yes. Specifically EFPs, or explosively formed penetrators which are sophisticated shaped charged muntions capable of penetrating armor. My source on this is the gov't of the United States of America; the theory being that the local bomb makers do not have the material or expertise to make such devices by them selves. As to the special brigades, a number of Iranian military have been killed or detained while working in Iraq with various militia groups. Iran, of course denies any involvement. But if you aren't inclined to believe the US gov't, then there isn't much I can do for you. As for links, stick IED and Iran in google - you'll get a bunch of gov't press releases and a host of lefty sights calling it all a conspiracy to invade Iran.
0
SuperLib
I don't have any problems with positive relations between Iran and Iraq. It's much better than what they had before. Without an invasion we could have been watching a nuclear arms race.
0
adaydream
And the United States has never proved its theory.
How do other countries get munitions? Through bomb merchants. Where did McVeigh get his bomb making stuff? From the local fertilizer dealer. Where do bomb merchants get their new bombs that they sell to rogue nations? They get them from sophificated bomb making companies. Right off the docks. Hi-kacked trucks. With good old green backs.
Your theory is just that. A theory backed by nothing. < :-)
0
Triumvere
"Bomb Merchants" ? These are NOT fertilizer bombs. They are high tech shaped charge weapons in a place where the locals fight with AKs, RPGs and other low-tech stuff. Whith the US controlling port access, you think they came in on a boat?
Seriously man, if you don't trust the US gov't thats fine. A little cynacism is healthy. But don't give the terrible, opressive regime in Tehran a pass. Sit down and think about it. Does Tehran have the ability to create these munitions? Yes. Does Tehran have the ability to supply these munitions? Yes. Does Tehran have a vested intrest in seeing the US and a US baced Iraqi gov't fail? Unquestionably, yes.
Is that uncontrovertable proof? No. But use some logic here. They are unlikely to be coming from Saudi Arabia (Saudis povide the man-power for the insurgency, but not much in the way of arms or tech). Syria? Possibly. Iran is still your best candidate.
As for "proof" there simply isn't any you will believe. Anything the US says you will dismiss. The Iranians will only deny, as it is in their interest to do. The only other people who know the truth are the bombers, and they aren't talking to you. So use your head.
0
adaydream
Triumvere - Your post are an example of posting an opinion without facts.
It's an example of a blind opinion based on no facts.
Just because the United States says something doesn't make it correct.
This administration said their were WMD in Iraq. That's what the United States said. It was proven not to be the case before the US attacked.
It's like
This is a baseless statement. < :-)
Back to top