More hope and change: U.S. to open quasi-embassy in Tehran
posted at 9:05 pm on July 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Not an official embassy, just an “interests section,” which is basically the same thing minus the imprimatur of formal diplomatic relations. Iran already has one in D.C.
The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.
The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section – a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country…
The US has had to rely on British diplomats based in Tehran, as well as other diplomats, for information about the inner workings of Iranian politics. Having its own staff would give them access to students, dissidents and others. The staff would also process visa applications, at present handled by a small office in Dubai, which is difficult for Iranians to get to.
Big news, or at least it was when WaPo editorial page editor Fred Hiatt first broke it a month ago. Money quote from that column: “[O]fficials continue to worry about how to package such a proposal without having it appear, one said, ‘as a sign of weakness.’” How else could it be interpreted? According to Hiatt, the Bushies have been toying with this idea for two years. If they wanted to play it from a position of strength, they would have done it at some point other than, say, within 48 hours of agreeing to drop their preconditions and meet with Iran over its nuke program. And are they kidding in trying to sell this as a meaningful opportunity to reach out to dissidents and “make contact” with Iranians? The regime will be watching them like hawks, and after all, it’s not the Iranian public that’s our problem over there. The whole thing seems purely symbolic.
Seriously, what’s going on lately? Does Bush honestly think he’s going to get Iran to suspend enrichment — which they’ve already vowed never to do — if only he jumps through enough hoops? If so, then the era of Hopenchange is upon us.
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: « Previous 1 2
No problem. We’re both on point. :)
Limerick on July 18, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Good point.
freevillage on July 18, 2008 at 12:19 AM
They didn’t ask in 48, 56, 67, or 72. If the lady decides it is their only option she won’t (and shouldn’t) waiver.
Limerick on July 18, 2008 at 12:23 AM
so this will be the building that doesn’t have a bulls-eye on it?
billypaintbrush on July 18, 2008 at 12:25 AM
You know MB4 I find it astounding that you repeatedly post quotes like that, that one specifically numerous times – are you aware of the fact that he never said that quote, that you picked that up off a site and it is an entirely altered form of the words spoken by Eisenhower? If you google that quote you get nothing but the site you copied & pasted it from, which is eeegads merely a comment by a random user (Ron Paul supporter), if you google the speech where some of those words were spoken you get a press conference and the meaning of the President’s words were very different than the meaning you propose here..
So not only have you twisted meaning, you have actually invented a quote and attributed it to the President of the United States. Eisenhower was speaking about the soviet threat and nuclear weapons, if you think that quoting the President supports your arguments that’s fine, but you can’t just make stuff up and attribute it to the President!?
saus on July 18, 2008 at 6:02 AM
free village:
Israel has had plenty of time to make that strike before this and have not. Did we have a diplomatic presence in Iraq when they bombed the reactor there years ago?
I like and respect Bolton. But I think he was too quick to judge the NK deal a failure, especially since they did bring down the cooling towers….and he might be speaking too soon here as well. Bolton can deal with the bad guys when he has to. Didn’t he help put together that UN Resolution that was supposed to help end the fighting between Israel and Lebanon a couple of years back?
Terrye on July 18, 2008 at 6:21 AM
I remember when Maliki went into Basra and just about everyone, left and right assumed the Iraqis would get their asses kicked by the militia. Just about everyone, left and right decided it was a lost cause and Maliki was a weak leader.
Just about everyone was wrong. If they had waited a little while before making up their minds they would have seen that.
highhopes has a point, we have to remember Iraq and the troops there and the trouble the Iranians can and will cause. Is this a victory for them? Well they have been promising to destroy us and here they are willing to chat. Who knows?
Terrye on July 18, 2008 at 6:29 AM
The key points in that article, that I haven’t seen discussed here:
So the Americans are already talking with the Iranians, they are just doing it through the Swiss. This new “embassy” will help Americans wanting to visit Tehran, and may encourage Iranians to visit the U.S. It does not remove the option of a tactical strike/full scale invasion of Iran.
thisaintnopicnic on July 18, 2008 at 6:47 AM
If the United States won’t act, because of the Congress and the Democrats, then Israel must take the initiative and act on her own. You can’t bank on Mutual Assured Destruction working with religious fanatics who have vowed to wipe you off the map. It has to happen in the next few months, before the Iranians have their Russian SAMs installed. These are the facts.
Israel’s recent air-force exercise out to Greece and back demonstrated to Iran that Israel has the capacity to attack from the air. I would guess that Israel has agents on the ground who have pinpointed all the crucial nuclear facilities, and Israel has bunker-busting munitions from the US. If worse came to worst, Israel has atom bombs she could use.
Though I would not be surprised if Israel faked an airstrike as a distraction, but actually employed saboteurs and commandos to destroy the uranium enrichment plants, which are underground.
If Iran retaliated by closing the Straits, we would then have an excuse to take out Iran’s tiny naval and air forces, and to help Israel finish what she started.
One of us should then target the mullahs themselves: decapitate the regime.
So logically we have to conclude that Iran is being told: give up your nuclear ambitions and we’ll end the state of war, which began in 1979 (when we should have taken out Khomeini); we’ll have normal diplomatic relations, and we’ll help you with your infrastructure.
Continue and your regime is over.
Hand out carrot, and wave stick.
MrLynn on July 18, 2008 at 7:06 AM
Terrye, free was agreeing with you, I think; and I agree with you both. This is a good way of showing we’re not allowing the situation to get out of control. In truth the people of Iran are a greater threat to the faction in control than we are, and we ought to do everything in our power to leverage that.
DrSteve on July 18, 2008 at 7:47 AM
I agree this could just be symbolic as was the dance of going to the UN before we invaded Iraq. But, if it comes down to Israel bombing Iran, won’t our “interests section” be under threat of being taken hostage again?
CP on July 18, 2008 at 9:36 AM
How many in the State Department will refuse to serve in Iran?
danking70 on July 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM
The MSM has identified this as a turnaround by the Bush administration, but how often do they get these things right?
I can imagine some circumstances where this could make sense, and far more circumstances where it’s a bad move. But the fact that the Bush administration has held off doing it this long suggests that they at least appreciated the negatives. They must at least have reason to think it might help now. Whether or not they’re right, I don’t know at this point. I don’t think we have enough evidence to be sure yet.
After all these years of the MSM covering the Bush administration, I have a lot more confidence in the Bush administration than in the MSM’s coverage of it. The MSM’s record is much, much worse.
theregoestheneighborhood on July 18, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2