Attempts by Britain and the European Union to solicit the support of Iran were given an ominous public rebuff yesterday

Attempts by Britain and the European Union to solicit the support of Iran were given an ominous public rebuff yesterday when the country’s powerful “supreme leader”, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, pledged Tehran would “not provide any help to America and its allies in their attack” against Afghanistan.
Mr Khamenei used the occasion of an address to veterans and the families of those killed in the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war to deliver the strongest attack on US foreign policy since the atrocities of 11 September, telling Washington: “You have always caused blows to Iran’s interests How dare you request help … in order to attack the innocent Muslim nation of Afghanistan which has suffered and which is our neighbour.”For the first time since 11 September there were chants of “Death to America” from the audience – which included many disabled veterans – during the Ayatollah’s address. Since the atrocities the chants have not been heard in Tehran during the normal Friday prayers. Although not necessarily the final word from the Tehran leadership, the criticism of America is a potentially serious setback after tentative, if ambiguous, signs that the political leadership was warming towards some measure of tacit backing for the US and UK-led “war against terrorism” – and by extension, military action in Afghanistan.The hard line was at least partially reinforced earlier in the day. Iran’s recent more moderate overtures towards the West in the aftermath of the attacks came from the reformist President Mohammad Khatami, who is locked in his own power struggle with the religious hardliners led by Mr Khamenei.But President Khatami criticised President Bush yesterday, telling Tehran University students: “A powerful human being can become so arrogant that he thinks he can distinguish between good and evil on his own.”President Khatami strongly attacked Mr Bush for his remarks about a “crusade” against terrorism and for saying, as Dr Khatami put it, that “those who are with us are against terrorism, those who are against us are terrorists”. This smacked of “Machiavellianism” and carried the danger of a clash between civilisations dominating geopolitics. This accusation came after Jack Straw and the European Union delegation who visited the President on Tuesday had gone out of their way to stress that this was precisely what the West wanted to avoid.There was some speculation in Tehran last night that the new hard line had emerged after a meeting the previous day of the powerful National Security Council in which the religious leadership may have reasserted its influence.

Diplomats reacted cautiously, saying that they needed to study the full text before respond. They acknowledged that it could be a reversal but suggested that liberal opinion could soon reassert itself.Diplomats remain hopeful that the apparent Iranian position during the talks with Mr Straw – namely that action might be supported provided there was UN backing and sufficient evidence of Osama bin Laden’s involvement was forthcoming – can be sustained.While firmly restating these provisos after meeting the EU delegation, Dr Kamal Kharrazi, the Iranian foreign minister, did acknowledge that the UN had a right to defend itself from attack under the UN Charter. British and EU officials have been anxious to stress that they too want to see a “focused” initial action in Afghanistan which does not trigger a wider war in the Middle East.Nevertheless the Ayatollah’s pronouncement yesterday will cast doubt over whether that will be enough to secure the backing of Iran.But Chris Patten, the EU external affairs commissioner, was unequivocal in Tehran yesterday in saying that any action directed at innocent men, women and children fell within the definition of a terrorist. “There is no such thing as a good terrorist or a bad terrorist,” he said.Earlier, Mr Kharrazi had defended Hizbollah, which he declared was “considered as a resistance movement to foreign occupation”. But this sharp difference may itself be academic if the supreme leader’s unbridled remarks at the commemoration yesterday reflect a hardening position within the leadership to which the political establishment will have to bow.. As bullets still flew around the Gaza Strip, Israel’s Prime Minister, ArielSharon finally bowed to overwhelming pressure from a war-minded Washingtonand allowed truce talks to go ahead yesterday with Yasser Arafat in thehope of ending a year-long conflict with the Palestinians. As bullets still flew around the Gaza Strip, Israel’s Prime Minister, ArielSharon finally bowed to overwhelming pressure from a war-minded Washingtonand allowed truce talks to go ahead yesterday with Yasser Arafat in thehope of ending a year-long conflict with the Palestinians.
After weeks of prevarication, and amid fraying relations with the West, MrSharon gave his blessing to the long-awaited meeting between his ForeignMinister, Shimon Peres, and the Palestinian leader whom the Israeli premieronly recently branded as a terrorist, Israel’s Osama bin Laden.The talks were the result of increasingly impatient lobbying from the USand its allies, who have been urging both sides to try anew to end theirconflict because it threatens to undermine President George Bush’s largermission – the infinitely delicate task of creating consensus among Araband Islamic countries for his declared global war on terror.They brought together two worn, wily old men, who once shared the 1994Nobel Peace Prize and talked warmly together of a utopian future where aJewish and Palestinian state would live peaceably side by side on the samesmall and ancient landscape.Now, their laurels withered and awards tarnished, they were reduced to afrosty, split-second handshake for the cameras – eyes averted – and astark, untrusting, agenda aimed at stopping the daily flow of blood thathas claimed more than 800 lives in a mere year, and caused many thousandsof injuries.The meeting, held at the Palestinian Authority’s airport in southern Gaza,was in jeopardy until the very last.

A few hours before it began, thealready tattered week-old ceasefire was broken anew, this time by a bombplanted by Palestinian Hamas guerrillas who tunnelled beneath an Israeliarmy outpost in Gaza. It lightly injured three soldiers and set off aflurry of shooting.Mr Sharon – monitoring proceedings from his expansive farming ranch inIsrael’s Negev desert, just a few miles away – called urgent consultationswith Mr Peres. Mr Sharon – mindful that Washington is breathing heavilydown his bull-neck, and that Mr Peres had earlier threatened to quit thecoalition government if the talks were called off – agreed to press on.The two-hour meeting was still underway as news was breaking of moredeath, providing a sobering reminder that yesterday’s events were but thefirst small step along a difficult road, and that the fundamental problemsbetween the Palestinians and the Israelis who occupy their land are nomore resolved today than they were at the start of the intifada.By the time the two negotiators emerged, 16-year-old Mahmoud Qushta laydead but three miles away, with an Israeli bullet in his skull, and 11other Palestinians being treated for wounds after being fired on byIsraeli troops close to the Egyptian border. cancelled a planned joint press conference, leaving it to Saeb Erekat, aseasoned Palestinian Oslo peace negotiator, to read out the terms of theirpre-scripted communique outlining the deal: the resumption of securityco-operation, “maximum effort” at enforcing the ceasefire, loosening of theIsraeli blockade of the occupied territories, and another Arafat-Peresmeeting “within a week or so”.The language was deliberately flexible – note the words “maximum effort”,rather than a total ceasefire enforcement, for example – which suggeststhat both sides now accept that a certain level of violence will simmeron.

This marks a change from Mr Sharon’s insistence on total calm beforeagreeing to talks.Although it was no more than a small and tentative shuffle back towardsthe negotiating table, but it was enough to please the Americans. A WhiteHouse spokesman said it was “an important step forward to restoring trustand confidence”, and called for both sides to follow up at once with”concrete” actions. yesterday’s events reflect the changes brought about by the US atrocities.”We are keeping our fingers crossed,” Dr Erekat told The Independent,”Palestinians and Israelis now have over their heads something calledSeptember 11th – and we can’t ignore it.” Mr Peres was guarded. “No onecame with great joy and everyone has grounds to worry if this agreementwill be implemented on the ground, but it was an important meeting,” hesaid afterwards.Neither side is in an easy position. Mr Arafat and his PalestinianAuthority face the risk that the truce will be wrecked by the militants,such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad – who have been spouting rhetoric aboutcontinuing the war, but have curtailed their attacks considerably in thelast fortnight.And Mr Sharon must face the wrath of his right-wing, who see yesterday’stalks as a propaganda coup for Mr Arafat which undermines Israel’sinternational publicity drive to portray the Palestinian leader as theauthor of terrorism no different from the monstrous attacks on the WorldTrade Centre and the Pentagon.Nor do the Israeli right relish the idea cosying up to the Palestinians inorder to assist the US build a “consensus” – the term that westerndiplomats now prefer to use instead of “coalition” when discussing theArab and Islamic states – that may include Syria, Iran and other foes.Even before they were held, the Public Security Minister, Uzi Landau,denounced the talks as a “humiliation and a disgrace”.So what happens next? Tomorrow sees the start of the countdown thatpaves the way to implementing the Mitchell Report.