The movement with Iran might be due to a belief that engagement now might pay off later in the post-Ahmadinejad era. Or maybe better put, we might be dealing with people in those talks who have channels directly to the Grand Poobah (or Supreme Leader or whatever that Ayatollah is called) and if a fair deal is proposed that Dinner Jacket shoots down, then it could hasten the political demise of Ahmadinejad. In other words, there is more potential for up side than down. Worst case nothing changes as a result of the talks so there is really little downside potential from participating in them.

You folks are obsessing over MEDIA REPORTS?

Do you take what the media writes at face value? I don’t. Everything you read in the papers, watch on TV in a newscast is AGENDA DRIVEN JOURNALISM.

Haven’t you learned this by now?

It is quite possible that your fears will come true.

It is also possible (likely even) that what you think has little connection to reality, and that your perceptions of motivation are 180 degrees off course.

It is best to wait and see what develops before you start panicking.

They continually call our bluff and we continue looking weak. It’s time to hold a seance for Gen. Patton. No wonder everyone hates Cheney, he’s the only person with a semblance of gumballs in our government at this point.

Utterly disappointed. Again. (/rant off)

I listened to the Barnett interview mentioned by RushBaby at 10:29, as I have the other 7 in the series. I agree with Barnett’s optimism for the possibilities in the region. But what we have is Barnett’s long-term optimism against Gaffney’s short term pessimism. And I think both are completely valid arguments. The question (oversimplified) is do we arrive at Barnett’s mostly-connected region before the nukes go off?

Consistent with my nick, I don’t think the signs are that positive. I’d like to think with the situations Bryan describes above that there are some “horizontal-thinking” players involved, with the long-terms interests of America (and the free world in general) in mind. I’m afraid, though, that it is just as likely that what we are witnessing are decisions based as much as anything else on simple, ground-down political fatigue in the “long hard slog” to 2008.

The best part about it is the limited cost and the lesson we learned. Just pick up the phone, call Bank X in a banking territory, and offer $1 million over the cash you want to freeze as a guarantor. That way there’s no loss to the bank and you can apply pressure to North Korea or other cash-starved country.

Unfortunately, for Iran, it’s not that easy. But watch the talks. I don’t think we’ll see a “smackdown”, nor do I think we’ll see anything really from the US in the way of talking to Iran or Syria. This is Iraq’s show, and we want to stand side-by-side with the fledgling democracy. It’s also a signal that we’re not thinking of attacking Iran anytime soon, regardless of what the Times of London says.

The leftist mainstream media does not want to recognize the fact of heavy Iranian involvement in indermining Iraq’s democratically elected government and Syria’s role in undermining Lebanon’s democratically elected government. That would suggest that such “talks” are not a good idea. But the fact is that Iran and Syria have those involvements, and any “talks” have to occur in the context of that reality. What, then, can such “talks” accomplish? Surely, no one thinks that we can sit at a conference table and ask the Iranians “pretty please, stop sending weapons into Iraq” and Iran will agree.

It may be that there is less than what meets the eye here. It was Iraq who invited its neighbors to “talks,” and we have to respect Itaq’s sovereign wishes to have “talks.” President Bush may be giving some latitude to Condi Rice to see what she can do. But in the end, “talks” are not going to accomplish anything meaningful unless somehow “talks” cause Iran and Syria to pursue other courses of action than they have been. I don’t think that “talks” can accomplish that.

In the last election Bush lost more than the Congress… he lost his Mojo…

During my morning commute this morning, I listened to another installment of Hugh Hewitt’s interview with author and strategist Thomas P.M. Barnett, about his book, The Pentagon’s New Map. He puts, into beautiful perspective, history, the global economy, the “Gap”, and the need for “horizontal thinking.”

I recommend this audio series to my friends here on Hot Air. Freshly influenced by Barnett’s ideas, the news in this post does not seem as pessimistic as it appears on the face of it.

Links to the audio on his blog, thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog or townhall.com (search under the Talk Radio Online link).

Time will indeed tell – I only hope that it is not too late in coming.