Q: Dan Trotta, Reuters[inaudible] I wanted to follow up. In a separate statement today, you said that there’s, in regard to Iraq, there’s a potential for a wider, regional conflict. What can the international community to do avoid that, considering that the White House has resisted recommendations from the Iraq Study Group with regard to talks with Syria and Iran? A: AnnanI think the international community can help, if we were to bring them together into constellation, [I have an advantage] – or they may use their own means to encourage dialogue between the US and Iran and Syria. For example, during the Afghan crisis we had what we called six plus two – that is, the neighbors of Afghanistan, plus Germany and the US. And we met regularly [inaudible]. Whenever we met, the US and Iran found a way of talking to each other, going into a corner and really had good possibilities of exchanging views, even though they didn’t have diplomatic relations. And I think that sort of contact is extremely helpful, and when you look back, the Iranians, in a way, honored all commitments they made on Afghanistan. And in fact, the Iranian border has been very quiet. And since, the problems have been on the Pakistani side, and this is why I have, for a long time, encouraged the administration that if one were able to work with them in Afghanistan, why don’t you try in Iran where they perhaps have even greater influence than they did in Afghanistan. And of course, Iran feels itself very powerful as a regional power, and the irony is that now two of the governments have been removed - the Taliban on one side, and Saddam Hussein on the other, and so they are really in a position to stretch their whims. But I think we should not forget that whatever they say and whatever they do, a peaceful Iraq on their border is in their vested interest. We should not only think we are going to do something to help the US - they have an interest to stabilize Iraq. |