Iranians See Talks With U.S. as Historic

When the announcement came Thursday, it was pointedly public. Ali Larijani, who heads the Supreme National Security Council, announced the decision to parliament, then summoned American correspondents to interviews. With a level gaze, he said Iran would accept the invitation of the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, to talk about Iraq.

Analysts and politicians said the decision showed every sign of carrying the weight of Iran's ultimate authority, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And some conservatives fell in line.

"It is obvious that when the Iranian officials present an idea, it is a calculated act," said Habibollah Asgaroladi, a leader of the Islamic Coalition Society, according to the ISNA news agency. "Considering the problems in the region, there is this necessity to solve problems through negotiations."

No dates have been set for the talks, and Iran has yet to name its delegation, which Larijani said would be of a rank "appropriate" to the task. Both Iran and the United States publicly emphasize that the subject will be limited to the teetering situation in Iraq, where both have deep interests and influence.

U.S. officials underscore this adamantly, openly arguing that Iran is opening a channel to the United States in hopes of siphoning off pressure it faces from the U.N. Security Council about the intentions of its nuclear program.

Some Iranian politicians acknowledge as much. "Although the talks will be over Iraq, these talks would have certain impacts on other regional developments and also on nuclear diplomacy," said Reza Talainik, head of parliament's national security and foreign affairs committee, ISNA reported.

Others describe the opening as a first step toward reducing Iran's estrangement from the West. The United States long has labeled Iran the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. But Tajzadeh said he feared the escalating rhetoric over Iran's nuclear program, which many suspect is a front for acquiring atomic weapons, was building toward military action.

"The public image the U.S. has made of Iran is a monster. They have to do something, at least break a horn," he said. "There is only a small chance. This is negotiation.

"Of course, in the short term," he said, "it would not be in my party's favor. But in the long term, it would be in the favor of the Iranian nation and our party."

Naser Hadian-Jazy, a political scientist at Tehran University, said Iranian commentators of all stripes see the new opening as the most significant public approach to Washington since 1979, despite mid-level diplomatic contacts through third parties in advance of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Both the supporters and those who are critical have made this point clear," he said.

The public also appeared to welcome news of talks. "I think both sides should take advantage of this opportunity. They should be friends," said Kobra Mehdipour, 68, clutching her chador against the March wind.

Asked who in Iran might feel otherwise, she said, "There might be some illiterate people in the provinces who want to be friends with other countries but might be under the influence of some kind of propaganda."

Karrubi, the moderate cleric, moved from supporting the 1979 embassy takeover to urging rapprochement with Washington. He said that was the challenge for the governments as well.

"Both sides should forget the rhetoric used in the media and politics. They should put it aside," he said. "They should create something new."