Iran Agrees to Talk With U.S. About Iraq

"We have got to solve the issues in accordance to today's situation," Larijani said, apparently alluding to the presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, where they deposed governments that Iran regarded as enemies. "The facts on the ground have changed a lot."

"We can create stability and security in the region. But not with the sort of rhetoric and language Mr. Bolton is using. What is needed is sensible people who can think of a long-term plan."

Larijani was referring to John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who said last month that Iran faced "tangible and painful consequences" if it continued with its nuclear activities, which Washington says are aimed at building atomic weapons. Iran in turn threatened to inflict "harm and pain" on the United States if U.N. sanctions were imposed.

In addition, the Bush administration this month announced a $75 million initiative to advance democracy in Iran by expanding broadcasting into the country, funding nongovernmental organizations and promoting cultural exchanges.

And on Thursday, the White House issued a new national security strategy with tough words for Iran and a reaffirmation of Bush's doctrine of preemptive war against hostile states with nuclear weapons. The strategy said the United States faced "no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran."

In a speech Thursday to the U.S. Institute of Peace outlining the new document, Hadley denied that the discussion of preemptive war was meant particularly for Iran. It is "completely wrong to say that our preservation of the doctrine of preemption is to preserve it with Iran as the principal case," Hadley said.

Hadley said the White House would "look at any kind of conversation" with Iran beyond the issue of Iraq but was leery of bilateral discussions for fear they would crack the consensus Washington has helped build with Europe against Iran's nuclear program. He said the solidarity of the international community seemed to finally be having an effect on Iran.

"We are, I think, beginning to get indications that the Iranians are finally beginning to listen," he said. "And there is beginning to be a debate within the leadership and, I would hope, a debate between the leadership and their people about whether the course they are on is the right course for the good of their country."

Karim Sadjadpour, who follows Iran for the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based research organization, said that "right now you could argue that U.S.-Iran relations are at almost their worst since the 1980s. I think both sides recognize the fact that it's incredibly important that they talk this time. I think it's very positive. This is one area where there is common ground. It would be a good start to talk about Iraq and then move on to the great issues of contention."

Analysts noted that Washington and Tehran have an obvious common interest in Iraq's long-term stability. Iran, governed by Shiite Muslim clerics, has consistently called for democracy that would empower Iraq's own Shiite majority, long oppressed by the country's Sunni Arab minority.

"This has been our ultimate desire," Larijani said. "If a real democracy succeeds in Iraq so that all groups can participate in it, that government can be a real, established government. We are against Americans creating an imposed democracy in Iraq."

At the same time, Iran has reason to worry that the recent rise in sectarian fighting in Iraq could erupt into civil war. Tehran is itself facing unrest in border areas where non-Persian minorities overlap into Iraq -- ethnic Kurds in the northwest and Arabs in the southwest.