Jul 26, 2020, 8:46 AM
Journalist ID: 2374
News Code: 83884549
0 Persons


Iran refutes US weird approach to Afghan peace talks in absence of Afghan Government

Tehran, July 26, IRNA – Iranian diplomatic mission in Kabul in a statement rejected fallacious remarks made by Former US Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad on Iran’s position in Afghan peace talks, saying Iran supports peace talks respecting national sovereignty and Government of Afghanistan.

Rejecting Khalilzad’s false claims with regard to Iran’s views and performance in Afghan peace process, Iranian embassy reaffirmed Iran’s support for establishing peace and stability in Afghanistan and its stable stance to peace and security in Afghanistan in due course inter-Afghan peace talks respecting national sovereignty and Government of Afghanistan.

Iranian mission advised the US officials to study about Iranian Government views on regional issues and Afghanistan before making any comment.

Khalilzad earlier claimed that Iran does not provide enough support for the efforts to maintain peace in Afghanistan.

This is while, Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Abbas Araghchi said earlier that the US intentions in the Afghan peace process are doubtful.

Araghchi stressed that the peace process in Afghanistan should be addressed through dialogue between Afghans, but that there are various factors that discourage Iran from the US peace plan with the Taliban.

"We believe that the US should not be trusted and that the US presence in the region is dangerous and will cause a lot of discord in the region," he said.

In the absence of the Afghan Government, the US formally negotiated with the Taliban and made a deal about the future of Afghanistan, Araghchi said.

The US entered into a deal with the Taliban and legitimized the group and held talks with them in the absence of the Afghan Government, Araghchi said, noting that the US considers itself a supporter of Afghan Government signed peace deal without it.


Follow us on Twitter @IrnaEnglish

Your Comment

You are replying to: .