A Real Deal on Iran?
President Bush today thoroughly repudiated his administration's Iran policy. Unlike past admissions of error, however, this u-turn is not simply atmospheric. The administration's Iran proposal is the real thing.
Put aside your skepticism about President Bush's proposal to enter into direct negotiations with Iran. Yes, the proposal is years late. Yes, the administration sponsored six-party talks with North Korea largely as a diversion. But today's announcement to offer direct negotiations with Iran is not a political manoeuver. Here's why.
First, some have suggested that the preconditions the United States has set for talking to Iran are a poison pill. They are not. The United States will join talks if Iran "resume[s] suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities." Washington has not asked Tehran to renounce reprocessing, although that will be a main subject of the talks. It asks Tehran to resume its earlier voluntary halt, the minimally acceptable condition for getting to the negotiating table. This is identical to the EU position.
Second, the US offer includes a significant concession on a point of princple for Iran: the right to nuclear power. Here's what Rice said today: "The Iranian people believe they have a right to civil nuclear energy. We acknowledge that right." This is a smart play to Iranian national pride.
Third, despite the requisite tough talk at the beginning of Secretary Rice's statement, the thrust of the offer was to promote a diplomatic solution, and to discount military options.
Ivo's earlier post makes the right points about whether this proposal has come too late or whether the administration will put the requisite muscle behind it. A bigger question is whether any negotiation with the likes of Ahmadi-Nejad can succeed.
The truth is a negotiated settlement with Iran with its present leadership is a long shot. But time is not a friend, and so-called Iranian "moderates" are weak and just as committed to leaving the nuclear door ajar. Long odds are infinitely better than zero. And, there is no prospect of a diplomatic solution without Washington's direct involvement.
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Theatrics...too litttle too late, too lacking in substance, too lacking in credibilty of carrot or stick..non-starter
Unranium enrichment don't mean squat. As long as the US real agenda - regime change - is not left at the conference room door for everyone to see, these negotations will be a farce and a charade.
Don't kid yourselves..
Iran is going to want more upfront than "oh we've changed our position, just suspend for a while and we'll talk"
They'd have to be idiots
May 31, 2006 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Well DUH...obvious to all but courtiers at Versailles on the Potomac
May 31, 2006 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
The NyT article also makes clear that this charade is designed to convince the world that Bush needs to "exhaust every nonmilitary option."
2 points:
1. A non-military offer Iraq can afford to refuse
2. Guess what - NO MILITARY OPTIONS
May 31, 2006 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh.
Here we go again.
Who is this guy?
And why should be take his opinion as meaningful absent any facts to support it?
No, it is not a "real deal".
A "real deal" would be putting Israel's nuclear arsenal on the table for discussion - a commitment to a "nuclear free zone" in the the ME.
A "real deal" would be directly stating that military action was completely off the table - if for no other reason than that it is completely illegal under international law.
Absent those two points, this is not a "deal" - it's a scam. It's for US and EU public consumption, nothing more.
"A bigger question is whether any negotiation with the likes of Ahmadi-Nejad can succeed."
And here we see the bias. It's unlikely that the Iranian President is going to be the lead negotiator in any event. And he is under the thumb of Khamenei, so it's not up to him to make any final decision, either.
And if this guy doesn't understand that, how are we supposed to take his article as anything more than uninformed opinion?
May 31, 2006 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Lee Feinstein is senior fellow and deputy director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. An international lawyer and specialist in national security affairs, he was Principal Director of Policy Planning under Secretary of State Madeleine Albright"
In other words, he went along with the Iraq sanctions that killed half a million Iraqis and with Albright's "we think it's worth it" line...
So much for Feinstein...
May 31, 2006 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
We hold these truths to be self-evident....another attempted Charade before the Crusade
June 1, 2006 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Just curious Lee. What were your comments back in Sept 2002? Did you lionize Powell too?
"Move Meant to Appease Allies" The NyT headline says it all. Good faith negotiations do not begin with one side insisting on a preconditional concession on the major issue in dispute now do they?
June 1, 2006 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
June 1, 2006 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
June 1, 2006 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Embedded Journalism and the Disinformation Campaign for War on Iran
Now Introducing, the Office of Iranian Affairs (Formerly Doing Business as the Office of Special Plans)
By GARY LEUPP
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
June 1, 2006 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
June 1, 2006 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
"I mean to try to settle this by diplomacy but if Iran continues to be obstinant, and defy the world, the world will act in the Security Council"
Case closed
The petition of the Steroidal WilsonNaifs is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to later refiling
Judgement for the Transhominid
June 1, 2006 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Have I got a deal for you Lee
http://www.tropicalisland.de/NYC_New_York_Brooklyn_Bridge_from_World_Trade_Center_b.jpg
June 1, 2006 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It becomes an even longer shot when our offers of compromise are saddled by preconditions which require the other side to essentially capitulate to us before the negotiations even start.
And you wonder why they don't trust us.
June 1, 2006 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note how they're presenting a false dilema: either Iran capitulates to us, or they want nuclear weapons.
June 1, 2006 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently the Swiss have a solid case pending against these men. David Albright, US weapons expert who "finds this lack of cooperation frankly embarrassing to the US" believes the defendants "may have been working for the CIA..."
For this and a multitude of other reasons, I'm dubious about the Administration's sincerity when it makes Iran's nuclear ambitions the rationale for its concerns about that country. The focus on Iran's nuclear build-up may well turn out to be the Niger yellowcake of this phase of Bush's imperialistic push into the Middle East -- a pretext for an invasion provoked by much broader concerns, from oil to our position on the chessboard vis-a-vis Russia and China and even Europe.
NB: For some reason, the embedded link to the source of the blockquote isn't working. Here's the link, unembedded: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/02/1414236
June 3, 2006 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink