Iran and US see 'positive' steps in first formal talks since hostage crisis of 1980

So the US and Iran have had their first meeting since 1980 and, by all accounts, it was a meeting that went well with "blunt" exchanges taking place. Both sides have described the meeting as "positive".

I always think that this is diplomatic talk for "we swore at each other but no-one actually threw anything".

The US brought up Iraqi security and Iranian interference but the main point of the meeting was, I thought, Iran's observations and offers to help regarding the training of Iraqi forces.

Mr Qomi, who described the US role in Iraq as that of an occupying force, told the Americans the training of the Iraqi army was proving to be too slow and ineffective, and offered to help - an offer Washington is unlikely to take up. Iran also proposed what it called a trilateral forum in which the US, Iran, and Iraq could meet regularly to discuss security matters. Mr Crocker said he would have to refer the proposal to Washington.

Considering the fact that the US have now been in Iraq for four years the lack of movement in the training of Iraq's army is little short of shocking. I mean seriously, how long does it take to train an Iraqi soldier? Why, four years later, is this still an issue?

Also, the Iranian offer of a regular trilateral forum is an interesting one, although it is unclear if the Bush camp will embrace this notion. Indeed, despite both sides stating how "positive" the meeting had been the US left the meeting giving the distinct impression that it was a one off.

Although Mr Qomi offered a second round of talks, Mr Crocker said the purpose of the meeting had been to lay out US concerns, and that had been achieved. "In terms of what happens next, we are going to want to wait and see - not what is said next, but what happens on the ground; whether we start to see some indications of change of Iranian behaviour," he said.

In other words, the meeting was a warning, it was the US telling Iran to back off and what happens next is dependent on whether the US is satisfied that the Iranians are no longer interfering. Of course, there are many of us who don't buy into the US logic regarding Iranian interference, so what should have been a positive first step may very well be allowed to wither on the vine.

This would be a great shame as the US badly needs to find a political solution to the problem of Iraq rather than a military one, and it's impossible to see how this can be done without some input from Iraq's neighbours.

If this meeting was merely an opportunity for the US to issue warnings to Iran, as Crocker seemed to imply, then this will turn out to be a lost one. However, if it is a first step to normalising relations with Iran and both sides working together to stabilise Iraq, then it could have great significance.

Why, when dealing with the Bushites, does the pessimist in me always presume it is the former?

Click title for full article.