It's been 27 years since the United States broke off official ties with Iran after the Tehran hostage crisis. Now, after appeals from the Iraqi provisional government, the two countries have agreed to direct talks about the ongoing violence in the country. "It is in the interests of the Iraqi people that such dialogue is opened," the Iraqi Shia politician Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim told the BBC.

The United States has repeatedly accused Iran of supporting insurgents in neighboring Iraq and has described Tehran's role as "mixed." Officially, Iran backs the building of a government in Iraq, however US officials suspect Iranian support for extremist groups who want to undermine the reconstruction process in Iraq.   

Until now Iran has refused requests from Washington to open talks about Iraq. However, it seems that the increasing violence and disorder on the other side of the border is starting to concern Tehran as much as Washington. In Germany, the press has also expressed interest in the new dialogue between the old foes, although many commentators are concerned that the discussions could give Iran leverage over its nuclear program. Despite America's assurances that the talks would be limited to Iraq, some believe Tehran might try to broaden their scope.

"Iran's willingness to talk is a good sign," writes the Financial Times Deutschland, "as the Mullahs in Iran exert influence over their religious brothers in Iraq and could, with a bit of goodwill, contribute to a de-escalation of violence." However, the commentator continues, the US appears wary and rightly so. "All too often Iran has feigned an attitude of willingness to compromise. This sudden new cooperativeness probably has more to do with the fact that the US has upped the pressure. In America's new security strategy, the (Iranian) regime has been openly blamed for sabotaging Iraq's democratization process." The paper also suspects Iran of wanting to appear cooperative over Iraq, in order to make headway over its nuclear ambitions. "The US would do well to avoid mixing talks over Iraq and the nuclear program."

For the conservative daily Die Welt Iran's nuclear ambitions are responsible for sparking off an arms race not seen since the Cold War. But this time round, the commentator believes, it is impossible to predict how the other side will react. "Experts are still unsure who is in control of the nuclear policy. Is it (Iranian) President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Ayatollah Ali Khomeni? What's more is that there are numerous influential groups who feud with each other for power and hardly contribute to the administration's transparency." The paper believes that the West's ignorance about the domestic political workings of Iran is one of the main problems. "Most predictions by experts about developments in Iran have been about as reliable as weather reports. No one, for example, had foreseen an election victory by the current president." As a result of all the uncertainty in the region, the world now faces one of its biggest challenges, the paper believes, since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Under the headline "Double-Edged," the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung also expresses ambivalence at Iran's offer to enter into direct talks with the US. "For America to talk to Iran about its role in Iraq is a double-edged sword … If Washington enters into official talks then Iran would end up having an indirect voice in events in Iraq." The other problem, the commentator believes, is that the debate could be widened to include the debate over Iran's nuclear ambitions, which would cut the EU-3, Russia and China out of the negotiations, and therefore create disunity among those opposing Iranian nuclear armament. "It is not to be ruled out that Iran is simply trying to make mischief and is playing for time," the commentator concludes.

For the left-leaning Die Tageszeitung, on the other hand, it is the American administration which is dangerous. The commentator sees the newly amended national security strategy as a continutation of the 2001 policy which led to the war in Iraq. "Combined with the US administration's recent criticisms of the Iranian government, the document makes clear that the so-called military option has, contrary to all good sense, begun to haunt the heads of the American leadership." The paper sees the situation today as a repeat of the run-up to the war in Iraq. "It is now the responsibility of America's partners and the members of the global Security Council to prevent the abuse of UN's top committee, as happened before the Iraq war in 2003." The fact that this time round, unlike in Iraq, there actually is a danger of nuclear weapons being involved, the commentator writes, makes the issue even more serious.

--- Damien McGuinness, 12:00 p.m. CET.
____________________________________________________

Berlin Takes Off ...

… And about time too, is the general consensus. After all, the decision of whether to go ahead with building Berlin Brandenburg International Airport (BBI) has taken nearly a decade-and-a-half, during which time the city has had to make do with runways more fitting a provincial small town than a capital city. Berlin to New York is the only direct flights to North America currently on offer, and Schönefeld airport, where the new BBI will be built, is really not much more than a container warehouse near a tarmac.

But despite the economic benefits predicted for Berlin and the surrounding area -- both of which suffer from high unemployment -- massive protests from local residents led to a major legal headache. At times there were even serious doubts whether the airport would be built at all.

After a year of deliberating, a federal court  finally gave the go-ahead on Thursday . Locals have been offered compensation and restrictions on night flights, so commentators have little in the way of a bad conscience. Almost every front page of Germany's major dailies on Friday features a picture of a plane or a euphoric headline welcoming the decision.  

"Finally," says the financial daily Handelsblatt, with an almost audible sigh of relief, "Berlin now has the chance to make up for its mistakes." During the 90s, the commentator writes, Berlin missed the boat and while it procrastinated over building the airport, allowing Munich to step in as Germany's most important air traffic hub after Frankfurt. "Until now, it hasn't been worthwhile for operators to offer long-haul flights because having three airports always minimized the amount of passengers who would change planes in Berlin." However, the paper also predicts that because landing fees will increase, Berlin will probably lose its status as Germany's paradise for low-cost airlines.

The Financial Times Deutschland is equally positive about the decision. "Good news from Berlin is rare, but here is some," the paper writes. "The judges have come to the right decision, by striking a convincing balance between the interests of the economy and protection of local residents." The commentator also congratulates the courts on making a decision on Germany's largest administrative case ever, within a year. For the paper, however, a rejection would have been unthinkable. "Until now the only intercontinental flights go to New York -- a decisive criterion for international investors. BBI will offer not only flights to the US but also, for example, to the Middle East and the Gulf Emirate states. The resulting business will give the whole region a boost." While the paper applauds the court's respect of the individual rights of local residents, by restricting night flights and awarding compensation, it believes the judges could not possibly have shelved the whole project. Especially in view of the fact, that although 40,000 people will be affected by noise pollution from the new airport, 450,000 people will have less noise when the existing airport of Tegel, near the center of Berlin, closes.

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung also welcomes the decision writing "at last good news for eastern Germany, at last good news for Berlin." The commentator also believes that the numerous delays and problems along the way have had a positive effect on the whole project. "Firstly all the to-ing and fro-ing has meant that the decision to privatize has been taken back. Secondly, the monstrous capacity size which was initially planned for Schönefeld has been scaled back down to a more sensible size. The airport will now start with around 20 million passengers per year, instead of 60 million which was originally proposed. If needs be, the airport can be increased in size."

The conservative daily Die Welt on the other hand bemoans the fact that the airport will be less ambitious than originally planned. It agrees that the decision is "good news, because of the implications it has for future of the economically weak, highly indebted region around the capital." However, it expresses disappointment that BBI will not become a major international hub. "To be realistic (Berlin) will have to wait in line behind Frankfurt and Munich in the hope of becoming an important airport for traffic going to East Europe and Asia." The paper also complains that the additional restrictions laid down by the judges, in terms of fewer night flights and compensation for local residents, will be an additional financial burden for Berlin's local authorities.