MOST IRAQI POLITICAL LEADERS CRITICIZE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BAGHDAD 000929

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/20/2016
TAGS: PGOV PREL IR IZ
SUBJECT: MOST IRAQI POLITICAL LEADERS CRITICIZE
ANNOUNCEMENT OF U.S. TALKS WITH IRAN

REF: A. (A) FBIS GMP 20060318538004


B. (B) FBIS GMP 20060318564002

Classified By: Political Counselor Robert Ford for
reasons 1.4 (B) and (D).


1. (C) Summary: The Secretary of Iran's Supreme
National Security Council Ali Larijani, responding to
a request by SCIRI head Abdul Aziz Hakim, said Iran is
ready to hold talks with the US on Iraq. Most - but
not all - SCIRI leaders from the Shia Islamist
Coalition were supportive of the talks with us in
private. By contrast, Shia Islamists from the Sadr
movement and from the Dawa and Fadhila parties feared
the Iranians would insist that the US install a SCIRI-
led government in return for concessions to the U.S.
One Sunni Arab parliamentarian worried that the U.S.
would make concessions to the Iranians on Iraq in
return for Iranian concessions on the nuclear issue.
Sunni Arab politicos urged that the U.S. consult
Iraqis on the subject of negotiations before they
occur. Kurdish President Talabani was publicly
supportive but in private Kurdish leaders, who
proposed discreet talks a few months ago, are neutral
about the talks. They point out that Iran will
attempt to use these talks to highlight their
influence in the region. Yet, say the Kurds, the
Iranians appear to have accepted limited talks on US
terms, indicating Iranian concerns about the course of
events in Iraq. End Summary.


2. (C) On March 16, Iraqi media reported that the
Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council

SIPDIS
Ali Laijani voiced readiness to hold talks with the US
on Iraqi issues in response to a request made by SCIRI
leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Most Iraqi Arab leaders
and interlocutors reacted with suspicion and termed
such talks "interference" in Iraq's internal affairs.

MOST SCIRI LEADERS SUPPORT HAKIM'S CALL FOR TALKS
-------------- --------------


3. (C) On March 19 Zuhair Humadi, Chief Advisor to
Vice President Adil Mahdi (a top official from the
SCIRI party) told PolOff that any conversation is
better than none. Perhaps speaking on Iraqi issues
can lead to speaking about Iran's nuclear program and
that would be most beneficial to the US, he opined.
Also on March 19, SCIRI Chief of Staff Haitham al-
Husseini told PolOff that it is a good idea to reach
out and start a dialogue. Badr Organization
parliamentarian Iman Khalil Sha'lan al-Assadi rejected
US-Iranian negotiations on Iraqi issues, however. She
told Poloff on March 19 that if the two countries want
to talk about Iran's nuclear program and their
bilateral relations, Iraq could have no objection.
However, she fiercely argued that countries have to
stop meddling in Iraq's affairs. (Assadi readily
acknowledged that her position differs from that of
SCIRI leader Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim who first publicly
proposed the talks.)


NON-SCIRI SHIA AND MODERATES UNIFORMLY AGAINST TALKS
-------------- --------------


4. (C) Other Shia political leaders condemned the
proposed talks. Sadr coalition member Qusay Abd-al-
Wahhab told al-Hayat newspaper on March 18 called them
"a tacit recognition of Iranian interference through
the Shia parties." Fearing that the Iranians will
demand a SCIRI led government in return for
concessions on nuclear issues, he said the talks would
interfere in the formation of the government. Dawa's
Kamal Abdullah Khallawi al-Saidi told Poloff on March
19 such talks are absolutely unacceptable. Hakim had
no right to decide bilateral US-Iran policy decisions
that involve Iraq on his own, he added. Nadim
Jabiri's Islamic Virtue Party condemned the talks as
interference in Iraq's internal affairs, according to
Sharqiyah TV on March 18 (ref a). Shia Independent
Qassim Daoud told PolOff on March 20 that he is
hesistant about the US opening a dialogue with Iran on
Iraq, because he doubts that the dialogue would lead
to stopping Iran's interference in Iraq's affairs.


5. (C) Iraqi National List (Allawi's alliance) Safia
Suhail predicted that these talks will not be helpful.
On March 20, she told PolOff that only reason Abdul
Aziz al-Hakim called for them was to upset the

BAGHDAD 00000929 002 OF 002


Sadrists. The List issued a statement saying that
Iraq should take part in any discussions with Iran
about Iraq, according to Sharqiyah TV on March 18.

SUNNIS WANT TO BE CONSULTED
--------------


6. (C) Sunni Tawaffuq Front issued a statement
condemning the U.S.-Iran talks about Iraq, according
to Sharqiyah TV on March 18. PolCouns talked to
Tawaffuq leader Tarik al-Hashimi on the night of March
18 and told him the U.S. goal was to stop Iranian
interference in Iraqi affairs. Hashimi accepted this
goal but was dubious the talks would help. He told
Poloff on March 20 that, not knowing exactly what will
be discussed, he was still opposed to the talks.
Poloff noted that the talks would aim to limit
negative Iranian influence in Iraq. Hashimi responded
that the Iraqis want to be informed about the subject
for such negotiations and want to be consulted before
they occur, he demanded. Adnan Dulaimi, responding to
a question at a March 19 press conference with
President Talabani, also expressed disapproval of
US/Iran talks on Iraq. The Muslim Scholars issued a
statement rejecting and denouncing the planned
negotiations, according to their website on March 18
(ref b).


7. (C) Parliamentarian Ali as-Sajri ranted to
PolCouns March 20 evening that the U.S. should beware
making concessions to Iran on Iraq in return for
seeking concessions from Iran on the nuclear issue.
He predicted the Iranians would offer nothing
substantial to the U.S. and that the American
agreement to hold talks with Iran about Iraq signaled
to the Iranians that the U.S. feels weak. PolCouns
responded that the U.S. would not discuss any nuclear
issues in these talks; they would be limited to Iraq-
specific issues. The U.S. would seek to limit Iranian
interference in Iraq, an issue that Sunni Arabs ought
to understand, he noted. Sejri agreed with the goal,
but disagreed that talking to the Iranians is the best
way to achieve it. He recommended sterner security
measures against the Shia militias.

KURDS WARY BUT GENERALLY IN FAVOR OR IRAN TALKS
-------------- --


8. (C) President Talabani publicly welcomed the U.S.-
Iran discussions at his press conference on March 18.
However, in a telephone conversation on March 20,
Presidency Council Chief of Staff Kamran Karadaghi
told PolOff that the Kurds were officially neutral on
the topic of U.S.-Iran talks about Iraq. Karadaghi
reminded PolOff that President Talabani had originally
raised the prospects of a quiet discussion between the
Ambassador and the Iranians, but the Iranians had
balked when the idea became public. Iran had also
demanded at the time that the discussion be open to
any topic. Karadaghi stated that while Talabani was
in favor of the bilateral talks, both he and KDP
leader Masud Barzani did not trust Tehran. According
to Karadaghi, the Iranians are wily propagandists who
would seek to use any bilateral talks with the U.S. as
a sign of their own influence and power in Iraq. "In
reality," Karadaghi sniffed, "their willingness to
limit the talks to just Iraq issues, and also their
acceptance of holding the talks in public signal
Iran's fear that they are losing control in Iraq."
Typically, Kurdish independent Mahmud Othman ignored
the neutral statements by the Kurdish leadership and
publicly condemned the talks with Iran, according to
al-Hayat on March 18.
KHALILZAD