Now that we have talked to the Iranians (as futile as I think that is), we are of course getting grief for that:
Arab officials and commentators said Tuesday they feared the budding dialogue between Washington and Iran could cut them out of the debate over the future of Iraq, one of the region's most important countries.
Many of Iraq's Sunni Muslim-dominated neighbors worry that the U.S.-Iran dialogue could boost Iran's already enormous influence over the Iraqi government and security forces.
Iraq and Iran are both majority Shiite nations. But unlike Iran, which is Persian, most of Iraq's 27 million people are Arabs.
"Iraq should not be stripped out of its Arab identity, especially as Iraq is one of the outstanding members and founder of the Arab League," Ahmed ben Heli, the Arab League's undersecretary general told reporters in Cairo on Tuesday.
U.S. and Iranian ambassadors met in Baghdad on Monday to discuss the sectarian violence that has engulfed Iraq four years after the U.S.-led invasion. The meeting broke a 27-year diplomatic freeze between the U.S. and Iran.
What really strikes me is that the Sunni Arab world has spent the last four years undermining the Shia-dominated Iraqi government. Being Shia Arab was not good enough when the Sunni Arab world thought that they might be able to help the Sunni Arab Baathists shoot their way back into power. That plan hasn't worked out too well for anyone involved. And now the Arab world is looking to Iraq as the Arab shield against the Persian threat.
So although this demonstrates a certain amount of nerve on the part of the Arab world to worry we will sell them out in direct talks with Iran, their protests are actually a good sign. The Arab world accepts that their Arab champion against the Persians must be a Shia-dominated Iraq.
