Hope and change: Bush envoy to meet with Iran over nuke program
posted at 8:33 pm on July 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
There’s no “direct presidential diplomacy” in the offing but otherwise it’s straight out of the Obama playbook. Preconditions? Duly dropped:
[T]he Bush administration has decided to abandon its longstanding position that it will only meet face-to-face with Iran after it first suspends uranium enrichment as demanded by the United Nations Security Council…
All of the Bush administration’s negotiating partners, particularly the Europeans and the Russians, have been pressing Washington to join the talks. They welcomed the decision to send Mr. Burns as an important signal by the Bush administration, in its final months in office, that it is seeking a peaceful solution to the nuclear crisis and not moving toward military action against Iran…
Mr. Burns will neither meet privately nor negotiate directly with [Iranian negotiator Saeed] Jalili, administration and European officials said. They expect his attendance to be a one-time event in what are being described as “pre-negotiations” on the shape and timing of more substantive talks. Ms. Rice told Mr. Solana that Mr. Burns would be there “to listen,” one official added.
“Pre-negotiations” sounds like, er, “preparations,” doesn’t it? Ah well. This isn’t really from the Obama playbook for the simple reason that there’s a credible threat of military action if the negotiations fail, but it is humiliating to see Bush dragged to the table after resisting for so long. Why now? A senior U.S. official tells the AP that having Burns there is designed to present Iran with a united western front but also to communicate the sincerity of the U.S.’s incentives offer. I wonder if in fact it isn’t born of the administration having finally concluded that Iran’s simply not going to change its position on enrichment and further negotiations are therefore essentially pointless, in which case we might as well try some desperate face-losing gesture in a last-ditch attempt to avoid war. Bush has no choice, really: The “rush to war” narrative on Iraq is so poisonous by now that he can’t afford a replay if the time comes for action on Iran. So yeah, by all means send Burns and let Jalili tell him to his face that Iran will never suspend enrichment. Then think about maybe scheduling another meeting for next month so he can tell him the same thing again.
Exit question: Who benefits most from this politically, Obama or McCain? St. Barack gets to crow that Bush has come around to his position, but it does take some of the teeth out of the “GOP warmongers” critique, doesn’t it?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Didn’t Cheap Trick write a song about this?
fiatboomer on July 16, 2008 at 8:34 PM
“There She Goes Again” by Condoleeza Rice. All together now…
leftnomore on July 16, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Maybe some of Bush’s poll numbers will rub off on Obama after he associates himself with another one of Bush’s recent lame-o foreign policy decisions…damn, this is so tiresome. Laura Bush should just go ahead and ask Michelle Obama what color she wants the drapes to be in the Whitehouse, so she can pre-order them on inauguration day.
AUINSC on July 16, 2008 at 8:39 PM
It also puts Obama in the position of having the same policy as Bush, and he can’t say his stance is anything new. By that time negotiations will have been going on for months and have failed.
Or does Bush know that Israel is planning a strike? That way we can say that diplomacy was tried and failed, especially with Iran having a nuke in as little as six months.
amerpundit on July 16, 2008 at 8:39 PM
LOL
freevillage on July 16, 2008 at 8:42 PM
Well, we can’t yet say the Bush Administration blinked but it sure looks like they winked.
The military option is absolutely off the table for the rest of the year.
I still say that we need to play the missile defense card with Russia and China to get them to pressure the Iranians. Other then that card, what can we use against them?
SteveMG on July 16, 2008 at 8:45 PM
So the missile defense is against Russia. I see.
freevillage on July 16, 2008 at 8:46 PM
My initial thoughts right after I saw the press sec. telling reporters that they “can’t comment on possible future events in the region”. (I’m paraphrasing)
I think it’s “not if but when?” time.
SuperCool on July 16, 2008 at 8:49 PM
That’s how they view it (potentially). And we can also deploy it in Japan/Taiwan to offset the Chinese IBMs.
Make an offer to the PRC and Putin not to deploy it in return for pressure on Iran.
SteveMG on July 16, 2008 at 8:49 PM
ICBMs.
SteveMG on July 16, 2008 at 8:51 PM
The problem is…who will call Obama out on this? Bush and McCain certainly won’t. Obama’s base won’t, since this is a position they strongly support…only what’s left of the foreign policy ‘neo-con’ base of the republican (little ‘r’ from now on…) party will object, but McCain has already decided he would rather have Obama’s nutroots than those ‘red-neck neo-cons’ anyway. I’m just hating this election more and more, every day.
AUINSC on July 16, 2008 at 8:52 PM
Hopey and Changey,might benefit from this,
and maybe not,it all depends how he flops
and flips!haha.
canopfor on July 16, 2008 at 8:54 PM
Smoke n mirrors. Losing face is the public side of it. Keeping Tehran up at night, scratching their chin is the flip side.
East Wind Rain. Maybe not tonight. Maybe not next month, but the weather is changing.
Limerick on July 16, 2008 at 8:55 PM
True, but part of Obama’s narrative has been that he wants to take a different course on Iran than Bush’s “failed policies”. If Bush is doing basically the same thing Obama wants to do, he’s not offering a new plan.
amerpundit on July 16, 2008 at 8:57 PM
Bush is making egObama look like a fool. This is just too unreal!
SouthernGent on July 16, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Leave Bushie alone on this one. I’m convinced that Iran genuinely is afraid of military action from Israel or the US…but more so Israel. I think that talking to them while leaving the threat of military action on the table (or the threat of helping/giving the green light to Israel taking action), unlike Obama, is a great thing. This is different from Iraq in that there is more than one person in power. If it was up to Ahmandenejad (sp), I’m sure Iran would be even more involved in Iraq and more hostile toward Israel. But he isn’t. I’m convinced there are a lot of people with a lot of influence in the Iranian government that want to deal with the US and Israel to avoid war. There’s nothing wrong with talking to them as long as we keep the threat of action if they don’t start working constructively with us.
malan89 on July 16, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Umm, but Bush is changing in the direction of Obama’s.
It’s Bush who’s offering a new plan, i.e., Obama’s new plan.
Although obviously Obama wants to go much much further than this.
SteveMG on July 16, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Maybe, just maybe from Israel, but from Bush, particularly after he has
done an Obama shuffleback peddled? Do you think that the Iranians believe that? Do you really believe it?MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Good cop, bad cop for the Iranians.
Bush = good, Israel = bad
SteveMG on July 16, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Between the Israel-Hizbollah trade and now this, Iran’s had a pretty good week.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2008 at 9:07 PM
I hope you are right, but I doubt it. Why put that drooling, racist, warmongering idiot in power in the first place then…his policies have already destroyed their economy and put the entire society on the skids. He’s there for a reason and will remain there for reason. The powers that be in Iran want him there. A military confrontation with the US is the best they can do, since none of their other goofy, extreme, terroristic islamist crap has worked. The sad truth is, they don’t believe the US will fight back…and based on events like this one, I think they may be on to something.
AUINSC on July 16, 2008 at 9:08 PM
SuperCool on July 16, 2008 at 8:49 PM
I agree. This meeting is a last ditch effort to placate the Euros and the Arabs. Nothing but a fig leaf. The strategic posture of the players has not changed. The Iranians stated that they would meet but not discuss their nuke program. The die has been cast.
Remember this; when the shooting starts it will be a surprise.
elduende on July 16, 2008 at 9:10 PM
DEBKA’s take -
High US official to attend nuclear talks with Iran, capping secret US-Tehran diplomacy
The understandings US and Iranian diplomats achieved in their undisclosed talks over several weeks were far-ranging. Our Middle East sources reveal they included Lebanese political stability under a new national government in which Iran’s surrogate, Hizballah won veto power and Syria’s violent proxy a ministerial seat; and Syrian ruler Bashar Assad’s restoration to center position on the Middle East stage with honors heaped on him by French president Nicolas Sarkozy.
This new White House orientation has thrust Israel to the outer edge of its Middle East policy in favor of placing its most extreme enemies at the center. Prime minister Olmert, foreign minister Tzipi Livni and defense minister Ehud Barak find their foreign policies bankrupted.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Depressing (that corpse trade story was awful), but true.
okonkolo on July 16, 2008 at 9:12 PM
John Bolton has an article on Atlas
Shrugs website,Israel,Iran and the Bomb.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121607841801452581.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
canopfor on July 16, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Not likely, because this will (as it always does) malign those who would align themselves with the likes of John Bolton on the “extreme” right. A responsible, measured, and realistic diplomacy, with nations in similar positions as Iran, that excludes direct negotiations without the necessary, formerly required concessions to the International Community and the U.S. will be view as an “extreme position“. “Even the NeoCon Bush Administration had enough sense to meet with Iran!” will be the future cry of the Left. In other words it completely lowers the diplomatic bar enough for Iran to crawl over it, and will sideline those in the State Dept., Senate, and House who view the world as Bolton does; at the same time it sets precedent for future “thuggish” countries to point to for similar treatment. Maybe the exit question should be framed, “who loses?” to which the answer would be: the U.S.
Weight of Glory on July 16, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Obama doesn’t have the same policy as Bush…This is like going to the UN before Iraq started.
tomas on July 16, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Also, does anyone else find it strangely coincidental that this happened on the heels of Gates saying that we need to be careful about a “creeping militarization” at the expense of State and diplomacy?
Weight of Glory on July 16, 2008 at 9:16 PM
So Homer sends Mr Burns to negotiate with Iran?
The Mexicans must have wanted him to do it.
MrScribbler on July 16, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Maybe we have been paying attention? Thanks to Jihad Watch for the following….
Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294) Whats good for the goose….
dmann on July 16, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Obama’s half-baked notion on how to deal with the likes of Ahmadinejad centered precisely on “direct presidential diplomacy”, a point he himself mistaken drove home in the debates. That was the central theme of the Obama playbook. That is what made him different from the rest, in his blind eyes. That is what made him smarter than the rest, in his fairy-tale world.
Many of us, including President Bush, never bought that approach since it was fool-hearty, untried and suicidal.
Straight out of the Obama playbook? I don’t think so, unless Bush is planning to meet directly with Ahmadinejad, kiss his feet and share some cookies.
fogw on July 16, 2008 at 9:18 PM
To answer Ed’s question, Obama clearly gains from this if President Bush has been saying one thing and now has suddenly changed course.
With the Pentagon, Gates, Obama and McCain now saying that troops need to be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan asap, this also benefits Obama as he has been basically arguing for this during the entire election cycle. This will help him minimize his lumps regarding the surge.
okonkolo on July 16, 2008 at 9:18 PM
“to listen,”
The definitive statement, that separates the State Dept. policy, from the Obama policy.
franksalterego on July 16, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Here’s a different question: where does this leave McCain’s policy on Iran when this last ditch effort fails? Does it set him up with a stronger hand against Iran after the elections, should he win. Or will the Left say the same things: Bush screwed it up; Bush didn’t move fast enough; Bush didn’t go far enough, etc.?
Weight of Glory on July 16, 2008 at 9:23 PM
True, but it doesn’t matter what he says or which direction he conviently shifts to at any given moment…because Barry say’s it’s true, it’s the ‘current truth’, which can change in 5 minutes and nobody will notice. His narrative is whatever it was the last time he spoke…his former positions on any subject are meaningless since they are not his current positions…well…I know you get it. I’m just shocked how well it works and even more saddened that we don’t have leaders in this country who can deal with this disgusting tactic…
AUINSC on July 16, 2008 at 9:23 PM
I have always had the feeling that there is more to things like this than we know. My guess is the Europeans had something to do with this..or it could be that certain messages will be conveyed. I know that people thought nothing could come of the negotiations with NK, and it might be that they will back fire yet but it does seem that the Koreans have kept their end of the bargain thus far. I would trust them about as far as I can throw my Chevy Cavalier, but so far so good.
It might well be that the Europeans are promising stronger sanctions if the US does this, who knows? Wait and see I guess.
Terrye on July 16, 2008 at 9:23 PM
President Bush, in a speech soon after 9/11 wanted to convey how we may have been culpable.
He said ” We accepted stability over liberty “.
It stuck with me because I felt it was precise and easily makes the invasion of Iraq and hopefully the reform of the middle east understandable.
For a long time we made deals with the devil and it was the easy thing to do.
After all not doing it meant war.
Well, 9/11 changed things, it raised the bar on terrorism.
Nothing short of destroying 100,000 people and a city will be acceptable now.
The calculus for these animals has always been brutality, combined with what they could do, combined with what they can do it with.
The only thing that has changed is the lethality of the tools they will use.
That is why we cannot negotiate with radical regimes,we must remove them. We being anybody from the free world in any ammount or share of effort.
That being said, President Bush and some of his cabinet I believe know this full well and I am not worrying about anything being fronted to his administrations intentions here.
There will be no real let up by this administration.
obama on the other hand scares the sh*t out of me.
Sonosam on July 16, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Sonosam on July 16, 2008 at 9:26 PM
So Homer sends Mr.Burns to negotiate with Iran?
MrScribbler on July 16,2008 at 9:18PM.
MrScribbler:From one of the episodes,”When pigs fly”!haha:)
canopfor on July 16, 2008 at 9:28 PM
okonkola:
The hell you say, Obama wanted direct talks between himself and whatever mad mullah happened to be in charge of Iran at the time.
Obama was wrong about Iraq and still is and refuses to admit it.
And the Bush administration has never said they would not send more troops to Afghanistan. In fact they have been pressing NATO allies to do just that for quite some time.
Obama has never even been to Afghanistan and has not shown any understanding of the region, the people or the type of warfare he would deal with there. He has hinted he would invade Pakistan, or maybe not. Can’t make up his mind. Nor can he make up his mind by what he means by a real troop increase. Does he want to go in like the Soviets? Do you even know?
Terrye on July 16, 2008 at 9:28 PM
And how long will it be before Afghanistan becomes the bad war?
Terrye on July 16, 2008 at 9:32 PM
A president talking with a foreign leader or sending others to talk to him or his representitives is largely a distinction without much a difference.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 9:33 PM
3 weeks.
Well, it makes sense to talk. I mean Ms. Rice got that whole Palestinian thing worked out so nicely, so they’ve got momentum. Or not.
Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Heh.
Weight of Glory on July 16, 2008 at 9:34 PM
If Obama wants no pre-conditions with any nutcake,
then the question becomes simpilistic,
AT WHAT COST,TO THE COUNTRY AND TO ITS PEOPLE?
canopfor on July 16, 2008 at 9:36 PM
That’s simply not true. If it were the bribe issue (selling access to Pres) we’ve been following in the last few days would be irrelevant. And it’s not. You know it, I know it, the American people know it:)
Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Iran stalls because they have the balls.
Maybe not the brains, but they’re willing to absorb the pains.
Which may end up getting them broiled if they aren’t foiled.
Psychotic theocratic halfwits cannot be allowed to juggle the toys of the Apocalypse.
All this UN jawjacking, when they should be attacking.
profitsbeard on July 16, 2008 at 9:38 PM
As we all know (or most adults), there is a world of difference, of course, between sending a representative to multi-party talks versus the President himself meeting without conditions the leader of that country.
The US has had negotiations with Iran for decades. As with North Korea, Cuba, et al.
Low level talks are vastly different than face-to-face summitt discussions.
Again, it looks like the Administration has winked but not necessarily blinked.
SteveMG on July 16, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Dude, give Obama some slack. When it comes to nutcakes I, also, lack pre-conditions before eating.
Weight of Glory on July 16, 2008 at 9:40 PM
I don’t know what you just said.
If some mafia don set a subordinate to your home to either beat you up or to give you a big gift would it make much of a difference if he came himself?
Did you see what DEBKA said?
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 9:41 PM
truly negotiating with the likes that no doubt cheered when that child killer set free from the other story was released.
I dont care what it looks like from the outside as long as it moves in the direction of removing them and there system from power.
Sonosam on July 16, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Just remember the facts,this Kabuki dance
with Iran has been 5 years,and the endgame
for their ability to deliver the payload is
getting close!
And Bolton’s article,President Bush has 6 months
to go,if Hope gets in,lining up his foreign policy
team,another 6 months,
Iran therefore gets another year,that would make 6
years!
canopfor on July 16, 2008 at 9:45 PM
The important thing (to most adults) is if there are pre-conditions or not, rather than if the Prez shows up in person himself. The impression that I get is that there were no pre-conditions.
And did you read what DEBKA said?
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 9:45 PM
The Obama ‘playbook’….
Obama today:
Obama Feb 29, 2008
Yeah. This is the fella we need sitting across the poker table from Kim, Dinnerjacket, and Chavez.
Limerick on July 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Well said.
Weight of Glory on July 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM
According to Debka, we attacked Iran three years ago. And again two years ago. And again last year.
Zero credibility.
I’m not surprised cranks cite it as an authoritative source.
SteveMG on July 16, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Do you think that it does that?
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 9:48 PM
It is unrealistic to refuse to talk to Iran, just like it was unrealistic to demand Iran stop attempting to enrich uranium.
When you demand a sovereign nation stop doing something, or else. You will almost certainly have to do the or else.
rockhauler on July 16, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Only if they didn’t believe you when you said ‘or else’.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2008 at 9:51 PM
I did not site it as an “authoritative source”, I simply sited it as I don’t have a narrow mind, I didn’t marry them, but they do have more credibility and sources than you do. So if I am a crank, what does that make you?
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Dude,
Weight of Glory on July 16,2008 at 9:40PM.
Weight of Glory:Great scott,I can’t believe I
besmirched the nuts and cake,
just a minute(flogs oneself),
now I feel better!
I’m going to sign up for nut,cake
sensitivity training,I’m sure a lefty
university has such a program!hahahaha:):)
canopfor on July 16, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Read what I said, you reading comprehension challenged crank!
Do yo think that the word “take” is a synonym of “authoritative”?
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 9:55 PM
SteveMG hasn’t been claiming we’re going to attack any day for 3 years now. Reading Debka is like listening to another round of Seymour Hersh talking about the administration “preparing the battle field”.
amerpundit on July 16, 2008 at 9:56 PM
There are a few people who comment on this site who do not seem to have much in the way of reading comprehension. You know who you are. No, you probably don’t have a clue.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Well said,
Weight of Glory on July 16,2008 at 9:46PM.
Weight of Glory:I would love to take credit,but I
shamelessly ripped part of it from
John Boltons article I linked at 9:13PM.
:) :)
canopfor on July 16, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Amazing. Someone states that there’s no difference between sending an emissary to sit in on multiparty talks versus the President himself – without conditions – meeting face-to-face with a leader of an adversarial nation.
Then he quotes – at great length – from a source that’s been demonstrably shown to disseminate rumor and innuendo. Then he calls on other to re-read his citation.
Then he demands others cite their sources.
Yeah, that’s a crank.
Gold medal winner.
SteveMG on July 16, 2008 at 9:59 PM
I’ve told you a million times not to exaggerate.
DEBKA gets some things right and some things wrong, but they do have Israeli connections anyway. They are more likely to have the “skinny” than you or I are.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Looks like it is necessary to say it again. You need to work on your reading comprehension. Read what is written and don’t put extra stuff in there.
All indications are the the U.S. representative of the President is there without pre-conditions, which is the important thing, not if the prez is there in the flesh.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 10:03 PM
There are a few people who comment on this site
who do not seem to have much in the way of
comprehension.
MB4 on July 16,2008 at 9:57PM.
MB4:Are u shur it be on dis sight,cause
im sure not eware ov it!(Kidding MB4)haha:)
canopfor on July 16, 2008 at 10:03 PM
dont care what it looks like from the outside as long as it moves in the direction of removing them and there system from power.
Sonosam on July 16, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Do you think that it does that?
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 9:48 PM
I do in the sense that though the story is put to the public as if we are on the time line.
I dont think thats true and Ill tell you why,
We all know that iran and other oil rich radicals are no more responsible than trust fund baby. They are incompetents who at the moment can buy their way out of trouble.
As long as that is status quo in the middle east these regimes have nothing to fear.
Now picture a free and independent Iraq prospering from their ability to trade outside sanctions while being able to pump fuel from the ground more easily than iran because thats the way it is combined with the fact that they have the best oil explorers at their service, US )
Iran however, is run by imbeciles, they have a crumbling civil air fleet to go with their crumbling infrastructure
to go with their greatest achievement, a crumbling oil industry. LOL!
When you live in a one horse town, you take care of your horse.
Not clifford and bartholomew though, they run the effer into the ground. Hell, they have to send their oil to be refined, they have fuel shortages.
Meanwhile, an unconstrained Iraq is getting stronger with our help, the best you can get.
How do you think that will play on most iranians and syrians?
Time is really on our side and I hope that the envoys message is one they wont publicise.
Sonosam on July 16, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Did you even read, for comprehension, what AP wrote?
Do you think that AP is a crank or A LYING LAIR WHO TELLS LIES maybe?
Good Lord.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Yes, some people believe that is the same thing as Bush meeting one-on-one with Ahmadinejad without conditions.
A US emissary sitting in on multiparty talks with Iran is analogous – no, scratch that – the same thing as the President meeting face-to-face with the Iranian leader.
As they say in Tehran, Oy.
To be sure, it’s a change in the White House’s policies.
But to compare that with a summitt meeting is flat out absurd.
SteveMG on July 16, 2008 at 10:07 PM
That’s rather difficult to picture. An Iraq that will cause Iran to “see the light” ???
Iran may be run by “imbeciles”, as you say, but they sure seem to be outsmarting our “geniuses” these days.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 10:14 PM
It’s in the works.
baldilocks on July 16, 2008 at 10:15 PM
How? I must have missed that.
fogw on July 16, 2008 at 10:25 PM
And just where did I say summit meeting? The same place where I supposedly said that DEBKA was an authoritative, presumably as in always gets everything 100% right, source? Where do you come up with all this extra stuff that you insert?
What I said was that the important thing was the pre-conditions or lack of same, rather than if the prez shows in the flesh rather than just his representative(s), as in -
You do know what “Preconditions? Duly dropped” means don’t you? You do know that a presidents representatives speak for the president don’t you?
“Debating” you is like “debating” a child.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Heh. Well, let me say then, well attributed, instead.
Weight of Glory on July 16, 2008 at 10:26 PM
The person says:
And then he asks:
See, his claim is that the president talking with another leader (i.e., a summitt meeting) is no different than sending an emissary to talk with other emissaries.
Oy.
Then he backtracks and tries to say that it was the lack of “pre-conditions”.
Even though there will be NO TALKS between the US and Iran during this meeting. So, pre-conditions aren’t even a factor. The emissary is there to listen about the possibility of setting up further meetings.
All of this is very preliminary. A change; but baby steps.
SteveMG on July 16, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Now picture a free and independent Iraq prospering
Sonosam on July 16, 2008 at 10:07 PM
That’s rather difficult to picture. An Iraq that will cause Iran to “see the light” ???
Iran however, is run by imbeciles
Sonosam on July 16, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Iran may be run by “imbeciles”, as you say, but they sure seem to be outsmarting our “geniuses” these days.
MB4 on July 16, 2008 at 10:14 PM
I noticed you didnt bother comment on my supporting analysis,
that could mean a couple of things, none which complement you.
Sonosam on July 16, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Iraq cause iran to see the light. No,
The iranian people to see a growing, free existence with some options.
Thats waht the muallahs are afraid of, cause thats whats gonna do them in.
Sonosam on July 16, 2008 at 10:44 PM
This is just to show that Bush “reall did try” to solve things diplomatically before the bombs started flying. Deep down he (and every sane person) knows that there is no point to talk to a fanatic.
AlexB on July 16, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Um, you folks do realize that there’s absolutely no chance whatsoever that we’d take military action against Iran, right?
They’re the number two oil producer in OPEC. Fourth in the world. They don’t have to lift a gun to kneecap us. Turn off the spigot, and watch our economy go ffft.
Beat your chest all you want, but it ain’t happening. It would be suicide.
Mal Carne on July 16, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Yes, Mr. Burns?
Smithers, get those B-2s in the air immediately.
Yes sir. Right away.
innominatus on July 17, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Scenario:
Israel does not want war with Iran, but is afraid of them.
The USA will not talk to Iran to, possibly, ease tensions.
Israel conducts massive air war games.
The USA sends high level military to talk to the Israelis.
The USA sends envoy to meet with Iranians.
Have those clever Israelis done it again?
OldEnglish on July 17, 2008 at 5:22 AM
It is not just the Democrats who are invested in defeat in Iraq, it is the paleos like MB4 here who seem to be absolutely wed to the idea of war with our southern neighbor as well as our complete defeat in the strategic ME.
I have said many times, extremes meet, guys and gals like MB4 have a lot more in common with Obama than they ever will with the GOP. They will claim otherwise but when virtually all of their arguments mirror Move On it is hard to ignore.
Perhaps they honestly believe that allowing Saddam to thumb his nose at the US and the world together with rebuilding his weapons programs and supporting terrorism, was actually in the long term best interests of the US and the region…but I don’t see how.
Now, if the US can do something with Iran like it did with NK, that would not be a bad thing. And they do know, thanks to the war in Iraq that we just might bring in the military. That gives diplomacy more of a chance to work.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 7:01 AM
Bush is a GENIUS! The dopes are getting roped yet again!
Exit question: can we declare victory and go back to sleep now?
/sarc
Mike H on July 17, 2008 at 8:29 AM
For all those fundamentalists that missed the sacking of the US embassy, here’s a chance to get in on the new action in 1….2…..3…..
What could go wrong?
Hening on July 17, 2008 at 8:34 AM
What the fu
Cylor on July 17, 2008 at 8:39 AM
It has become abundantly clear that most folks here have a “not invented here” neurosis.
Then again it’s also possible; that a more serious, continuing phobic delusion has reared its ugly head, all around?
J_Gocht on July 17, 2008 at 9:03 AM
fogw and SteveMG are exactly right.
Obama’s playbook was him talking directly with Iran’s leaders, with no preconditions. Anything after that were new versions as he wiggled his way out of it.
MayBee on July 17, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Question is where does all this leave Saint Mc?
Now President Bush has put Senator McCain on quick ride into his favorite ditch!
Oh, O…and then this !
Seems to this pilgrim; Senator Obama was there months ago…?
You either lead, follow, or get out the way, Senator McCain!
J_Gocht on July 17, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Comment pages: