More hope and change: U.S. to open quasi-embassy in Tehran
posted at 9:05 pm on July 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
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.
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: 1 2 Next »
Legacythink has invaded the Whitehouse.
William Amos on July 17, 2008 at 9:11 PM
We’d all better start studying the koran, because our country is doomed. With Bush doing this kind of stuff, and no hope of better leadership from our next president, our country is in some serious trouble.
rmgraha on July 17, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Wow . . . Melanie Phillips wonders if this isn’t a strategy by the Bush administration to assist McCain . . . Wish I could say she’s wrong . . .
BLOC on July 17, 2008 at 9:15 PM
has a stroke!
Geez, I hate to say it, but if he keeps this up, there’s going to be a conservative version of BDS appearing (just in time to make no difference)…and I may be the first victim…goodbye Dubya…the sooner the better, old boy.
AUINSC on July 17, 2008 at 9:17 PM
The complete Condi Rice takeover of foreign policy, I would venture to guess. It’s going to be really, really ugly.
progressoverpeace on July 17, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Words can’t describe my disappointment. Earlier on FOXNews, Ambassador John Bolton said this makes it harder for Israel to take military action against Iran. As a result Iran is now closer than ever to having a nuke. What is the administration thinking????!!!
Ordinary1 on July 17, 2008 at 9:22 PM
An Interests Section, like what we have had in Cuba for decades. It’s called diplomacy people. This is standard stuff for nations who don’t communicate officially to communicate.
I’m dubious that NOW is the time to be doing this but Allah’s overly dramatic proclamation that this is a quasi-embassy is just his usual attempt at stoking debate through hyperbole.
I’m dubious about the motives of setting up this interests section now, in the waning days of the administration, but simply ignoring Iran hasn’t exactly been effective has it? The next logical step to regional security after Iraq is Iran so doesn’t foreign policy dictate the the US begin the process of thawing relations?
highhopes on July 17, 2008 at 9:23 PM
I think Bush is hedging his bets, and trying to smooth the way for whoever wins in Nov. He’s pulling for McCain, but knows Obama might win. If I remember correctly, he’s spoken in the past about doing whatever he can to smooth the transition for whomever the voting public selects.
I think it’s too early, if I’m reading his actions correctly. But if I’m right, it does contrast strikingly with the “transition” that the Clinton administration for him.
cs89 on July 17, 2008 at 9:23 PM
I think he’s been listening to his daughters (who I suspect are voting for Obama anyway)…is an Obama endorsement in the offing, perhaps? With Bush’s poll numbers, that might be a blessing in disguise…in fact, a stroke of genius.
AUINSC on July 17, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Yes, and that’s your usual attempt at being unnecessarily snotty. I’m getting really tired of your crap, honestly. If you disagree with my characterization, give reasons.
Allahpundit on July 17, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Seems like Bush has been without Saudi guidance for a spell.
BL@KBIRD on July 17, 2008 at 9:27 PM
………. just in time to be held hostage. Then the games will begin.
Seven Percent Solution on July 17, 2008 at 9:27 PM
does he not realize he’s hurting our talking points against Obama, even if he did have ‘preconditions’ it wouldn’t even matter politically.
jp on July 17, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Why can’t it be read as a show of strength? We’ve kicked their butts in Iraq, that war is semi-”over” and we’ll have troops parked there indefinitely. We’ve got the strong hand, so now be generous.
laelaps on July 17, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Sentence first, then verdict, reasons maybe later. Off with your head!
MB4 on July 17, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Different culture. These sorts of actions are viewed far differently there than they are, here. This is a big mistake that people in the West often make.
Besides, we don’t have a strong hand. We’ve told them to stop their uranium enrichment and come clean. They’ve continued and said nothing. Nothing strong there.
Then, we wet our pants when everyone thought that Israel would attack Iran and the price of oil would go to $300, or whatever people were saying. That was not so much a show of strength.
progressoverpeace on July 17, 2008 at 9:33 PM
I don’t know if this is a remarkable turn around!
This is exactly what the Liberal do-gooder left
wants,give peace a chance,have dialogue,talk to
Iran!
So then,whats the next excuse the Libs will use,
Bush has done what they have asked!
canopfor on July 17, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Maybe it is a set up. Give the Iranians another chance to take american embassy folks hostage and give Uncle Sam a reason to give them the asswhuppin they’ve deserved for 30 years.
Bfunky292 on July 17, 2008 at 9:36 PM
I heard that the Bushies were not dropping preconditions, they were in fact sticking with the European position of stopping enrichment. I also hear that Burns would be there once, when it opened and then there would be lower level people there to deal with the Iranians along with other parties. Maybe we should wait and see what is actually going on.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 9:41 PM
I see a conspiracy worthy of making the left’s heads explode.
that would get public on his side, or should and force the media to revist the initial Act of War Iran committed against us in 1979. Then Bush might could get away with bombing away?
well it would atleast make for a good Oliver Stone movie
jp on July 17, 2008 at 9:42 PM
And you know something? The Bush administration has been dealing with these people for years. And for years they have been accused of being too confrontational. But I think they know more about what is going on here than the general public is probably aware of.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 9:43 PM
What next? Is Jorge Boosh planning on helping Iran secure its borders?
Wish I believed that it’s a “set-up” to whup the Iranians. Given Bush’s increasing wimpiness, I fear the worst.
MrScribbler on July 17, 2008 at 9:45 PM
I’m surprised with little more than six months to go – four really since the last two months are little more than packing things up – that they would take these moves, tentative though they may be.
I think AP believes there is more to this then it appears to my eyes unless underneath – as Stratfor argues – more substantive agreements have been made.
Again, why now? And why these small steps.
Must be indicative of something bigger.
SteveMG on July 17, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Much to say about nothing. If they kill Americans in the future, nuke em. Bye Bye.
Travis1 on July 17, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Snotty? I’d like for you to give examples of that. Fact of the matter is that I am passionate about certain things and don’t appreciate it when my patriotism is under fire for not becoming a Stepford voter for McCain. Sorry if you are offended that I choose to exercise my First Amendment rights. Am I mistaken in believing that HA is in favor of one being able to voice opinions? I haven’t served in the military for 23+ years to be a mindless drone of anybody’s agenda. Again, sorry if that offends you.
Why I disagree with your characterization is that calling an interests section a “quasi-embassy” is an incredibly simplistic depiction of a far more complex aspect of statecraft- how to communicate with unfriendly nations without giving them official diplomatic relations. It is not anything like an embassy though it has a limited number of the same functions. I think you are making more of this story than is actually there.
highhopes on July 17, 2008 at 9:48 PM
One thing we can definitely conclude: Cheney’s on the out and Rice is on the in.
Foggy Bottom wins again – no matter who’s SecState.
SteveMG on July 17, 2008 at 9:48 PM
on the same property?
maverick muse on July 17, 2008 at 9:49 PM
jp:
How does this help Obama? He can not claim that the Bush administration refuses to attempt diplomacy now can he?
Besides, whatever some people here might want to see there is absolutely no desire on the part of the American people for another war right now. Afghanistan and Pakistan have to be dealt with, and if there is any way to slow down the Iranians without having to double the price of oil, that is what people want. And as far as our troops are concerned, this is not going to put them in as much potential jeopardy as a military strike on Iran will. You know the mullahs will go after them. I am not saying that it might not come to that, but the administration needs to make it look like the last resort.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 9:50 PM
I guess I would never make it as a diplomat. As long as the elected head of Iran still publicly makes statements about annihilating an ally of ours, I see little reason to reward them with public diplomacy, even a ‘quasi’ embassy seems too much. I understand the need for communication but I think backchannel would be more appropriate, and only if we could get meaningful concessions from them. As long as Mahmoud sounds like a spittle flinging prophet of doom, our public declarations should be more like McCain’s little half joking ‘Bomb Bomb Iran’ schtick from a couple of months ago. They should be treated with contempt or ignored as long as they continue to sound like thugs.
austinnelly on July 17, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Tiptoe to the quasi-embassy
In Tehran that is where It’ll be
Come tiptoe through the Hopenchange tulips with me!
Tiptoe to your nuclear enrichment,
And help me build my legacy
And tiptoe through the Hopenchange tulips with me!
-
ObamaGeorge “Tiny Tim” BushMB4 on July 17, 2008 at 9:51 PM
McScribbler:
McCain supports the move I hear.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Umm Terrye……”there is absolutely no desire on the part of the American people for another war right now”…..
I am the American People and I’m ready for any war that has to be waged against enemies of this great nation and freedom!!!!!
Bfunky292 on July 17, 2008 at 9:55 PM
austin:
The Soviet Union did not just threaten to nuke our allies, they threatened to nuke us..and they actually had the potential to carry it out. But there was still some contact between the diplomats. That did not mean we surrendered.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it!.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th President of the United States of America.
MB4 on July 17, 2008 at 10:00 PM
IMO, a big mistake. Iran’s Islamofascist swines need a hard ass kicking!
byteshredder on July 17, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Bfunky:
Well maybe you are. I know I would not lose any sleep over the destruction of the mullahs myself. But the majority of the American people are in no state of mind for this right now. If they thought that you could make a nice clean surgical strike and take out the Iranian’s nuclear capacity without any Americans invading…a slim majority might go for that. But considering the fact that every time that crazy little bastard over there sneezes the price of oil goes up $5 a barrel and considering the fact that we have them surrounded by American military right now…I think most Americans are more inclined to try diplomacy first.
We have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have the navy at Dubai. We are there right on their doorstep now. They are threatening to try and stop the flow of oil and have been informed that would be an act of war.
Things are really tense right now.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:02 PM
At least its helping oil prices. I think that’s the rational behind all of this “outreach”.
phronesis on July 17, 2008 at 10:03 PM
jerrytbg on July 17, 2008 at 10:07 PM
I find it fascinating that you get a chance to speak with “the majority of americans” truth be told you only speak for “The majority of Terrye”. So drop the crap!!!
Bfunky292 on July 17, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s secret MySpace entry:
Hi there fellow Islamic bloggers. My name is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and I am the great and fearless President of the Islamic Republic of Iran and soon to be the defacto President of Iraq too!
I was was born one of seven children to a humble blacksmith and when I was a child growing up I worked on a farm to earn extra money for my poor father and I got to know a lot of the farm animals very well. I was
a real nature boy back then. I was a real animal lover. My favorites were the goats of course. I still have such fond memories of my boyhood.
Later I excelled as a student, earning my master’s degree and a Ph.D in civil engineering. I have only three wifes, but as the leader of such a great Islamic country and soon to be the dominate power in the Middle
East I feel that it is time for me to take my fourth
wife. If any nice Islamic ladies are reading this you should email me some time soon. You must be between the ages of 12 and 28 years old. If you are under 12 that would be alright too but you must have a note from a male relative of course.
In addition to my important duties as the Great President of the Islamic Republic of Iran I am now working on my post graduate science project, which when completed in a very few years, I will test on Evil Israel and the Great Satin America.
Who I would like to meet … …
In addition to my fourth wife, and remember if you are under 12 years old, you must have a note from a male
relative, I would like to meet other dedicated members of the Great Religion of
SlaughterPeace, Islam of course. We can all get together after work and spend time reading inspiring passages from the Koran and comparing notes on our mutual love of farm animals. We can also go over a list of prioritytest sites for my developing science project. It will be a blast! It will make much bigger holes than the one in New York that I am going to visit only for comparison purposes! I will also thrill and regale you with all my wonderful stories of how I got the better of that tool infidel Bush.
MB4 on July 17, 2008 at 10:09 PM
And they only get more tense. Waiting solves nothing but makes the ultimate cost that much higher.
It comes down to one question: Are you willing to let Iran get nukes or not?
If you are not, then no stalling makes any sense at all and we all know that diplomacy will never get the job done. So, … it leaves only one path.
progressoverpeace on July 17, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Chose the right path Terrye!!!
Bfunky292 on July 17, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Bfunky:
I have seen several polls on this and that is what I am referring to. Go argue with them.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:12 PM
I am beginning to think that Bfunky might be a fraud. On the internet? Surely not.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:13 PM
progress:
What has that got to do with anything? Am I willing to let Iran get nukes? Well I don’t think that what I personally want matters to anyone progress, but sitting up an office in Tehran where some negotiators will basically do the same thing they have been doing already does not take military action off the table.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:16 PM
progess:
So tell me, do you think the Democratic Congress is going to authorize the use of force against Iran? Right now?
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:17 PM
I would quote my dog before I would base an argument on a poll. I would ask you.. what state of mind were the american people in when we stormed the globe and won WWII??
Bfunky292 on July 17, 2008 at 10:19 PM
And what happens if we don’t succeed? What happens if some of the sites are unknown to us and the Isrealis and the Iranian people are mobilized against us? It seems to me that there are some people in Iran who are spoiling for a war so that they can brink about their big ass holy war and the prophecies will be fulfilled, etc. That is the problem with dealing with irrational people, there is no telling what they might do.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Guessing the quote box was off and the above comment should be attributed to you……
I’m of mixed opinions. Is Iran trustworthy and should we have relations with them? In a perfect world, no, but it has been 30 years and ignoring Iran hasn’t worked well either.
With the efforts made in Iraq, the US almost has to have some informal but more deliberate method of communicating with Iran because some issues in Iraq will not be resolved without Iran’s involvement. An interests section puts diplomatic personnel closer to the source for informal discussion and observation. That has to be a better situation than the current method of guessing what is going on in Tehran or getting second-hand reports.
highhopes on July 17, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Bfunky:
Like I said, a fraud. Well, I doubt that Obama would be this close to the White House if the American people were itching for a war with the Iranians. Does that mean they want them to have nukes? No, I am sure they don’t.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:22 PM
I wasn’t trying to ask ‘you’, personally. Sorry. I was speaking about the reasoning behind any of our moves in this situation.
I do think that actions in Tehran will change because of this. It is viewed as a collapse of policy (not full, but a decent amount) – at least I would assume that they would view it as such, there.
Do I think this Congress would authorize force? No. But what advantages do we get from this? (Putting aside any idea that this is just a diversion of some sort, but a straight-up diplomatic move) I just don’t see it.
progressoverpeace on July 17, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Okay, we are now going to ask for volunteers to staff this “halfway house” in Tehran…anyone?…anyone?…come on, a show of hands…
Vigilante on July 17, 2008 at 10:24 PM
We are in total agreement on this.
progressoverpeace on July 17, 2008 at 10:25 PM
well…..you step on em….like a bug…simple but bloody.
jerrytbg on July 17, 2008 at 10:25 PM
I remember some people having the same reaction when Reagan was going to meet with Gorbachev. They said it was going to do more harm than good. and that was a face to face. this is just a diplomatic mission.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:29 PM
I’m shocked the Iranians would allow the Great Satan to open even a “quasi-embassy” inside Iran. I hope it’s a ultra high tech quasi-embassy! From the regional POV you see the US victorious in Iraq. AQ’s butt kicked. Iraq moving ahead as the desired model in the heart of Arabland and now the US is conducting a soft-invasion into Iran.
My understanding is that Burns is going to be present at the meeting when Iran is to respond to the latest package of carrots offered prior to the sticks of the next round of sanctions. MSM is portraying it as negotiations and I don’t know how you conduct any kind of negotiations when the one they want to negotiate with is only an observer.
Texas Gal on July 17, 2008 at 10:29 PM
And what happens if we succeed Terrye. I hafta admit that you lost me with the “fraud” comment. I can’t imagine what feeble idea you have about me that brings that to bear?
Bfunky292 on July 17, 2008 at 10:31 PM
jerry:
That might have been possible 30 years ago, but it is not that simple today.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:31 PM
You sir are a BOOB!!
Bfunky292 on July 17, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Bfunky:
Let’s just say you sound a tad strident.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:32 PM
I am not a sir. I am a mean old lady.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Let’s hope it is. Maybe an attempt to say we tried to talk to them, taking decisive action afterward.
Time’s running out.
jerrytbg on July 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM
So irrational people won’t do bad things if we don’t deal with them? Hitler wouldn’t have invaded Poland if he had been ignored? Saddam would have seen the error of his ways if left alone? OBL wouldn’t have launched the 9/11/01 atrocities? Kim Jung Il wouldn’t have built nuclear reactors in North Korea?
Fact of the matter is that when it comes to diplomacy, ignoring the reality of the situation doesn’t always work.
highhopes on July 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Texas Gal:
That is what I heard. Burns would be there and then turn the mission over to other people. Makes you wonder.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM
LOL In that case i take it back as I would never speak poorly of a Lady.
Bfunky292 on July 17, 2008 at 10:35 PM
highhopes:
How did you get any of that from what I said? Did I even mention Hitler or North Korea?
I am saying that some people are more difficult to read than others, some more difficult. The Soviets were dangerous, but they were not suicidal. It is difficult to know how irrational people with a messianic mission will react to certain circumstances. That does not mean you do not try to deal with them if you can.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:37 PM
So what do we do when they get nukes?
sit around a campfire, hold hands and sing songs?
Get a grip, this is the real world…
jerrytbg on July 17, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Not just a lady, a matronly lady.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:38 PM
jerry:
Why ask me? I am just saying we can use the military option whether we set this office up or not. It does not negate that.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Terrye,
You’re starting to sound more and more like AprilOrbit…ummm.
jerrytbg on July 17, 2008 at 10:40 PM
jerry:
Speaking of getting a grip, do you think Nancy Pelosi would fund a war against Iran?
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:40 PM
goodnite
AprilTerrye.jerrytbg on July 17, 2008 at 10:42 PM
jerry:
No, you are taking things to bizarre extremes. You are acting as if sitting up some office in Tehran, precludes the possibility of war. I am saying, it does not if the circumstances are such that a president can get that authorization then he will whether or not there is a diplomatic mission in Tehran. In fact, any efforts made at diplomacy would probably make it more likely the president could get the go ahead.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM
good night.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Strident is a word u could use I suppose. I prefer fed up.
Bfunky292 on July 17, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Sorry if I misread your comments (the problem with dealing with written communication alone) but it begs a question.
When it comes to issues like Iran, are we dealing with an irrational people or an irrational nation. The distinction makes a difference.
highhopes on July 17, 2008 at 10:48 PM
With irrational people, it generally doesn’t matter if you do or don’t deal with them. The question is what is best for us. What do we get out of this, or what do we get out of dealing with Iran, in general? I just don’t see any positives … except if someone doesn’t mind Iran becoming a nuclear power … or prefers to hand the ultimate responsibility of stopping that off to Israel.
progressoverpeace on July 17, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, remember the facts:
Iran is developing a nuclear bomb and the missiles to deliver it.
Achievement of this capability is a direct threat to Israel, since Iran has promised a second Holocaust.
Therefore, Israel, with or without the help of the United States, is not going to let Iran achieve this capability. Israel will have to try to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, and most likely before the Iranians can install the Russian anti-aircraft systems they are buying.
The Bush administration knows this. For obvious reasons, they do not want an attack on Iran that will lead to closing the Straits of Hormuz and a world shortage of oil, not to mention a completely unpredictable effect on the upcoming elections.
So what are they doing? Most likely trying a last-ditch attempt to get Iran to peaceably stop their weapons program. Probably making face-saving diplomatic overtures in public, and telling the Iranians behind the scenes that it’s either make a deal, or expect war.
We haven’t pulled the carrier groups out of the Persian Gulf yet, have we?
MrLynn on July 17, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Question is where does all this leave Saint Mc?
Now President Bush has put Senator McCain on a 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
J_Gocht on July 17, 2008 at 10:52 PM
highhopes:
I have thought about that. I am sure there are many people in Iran who would like nothing better than to enter the 21st century. I read a book a few years ago, Reading Lolita in Tehran and I was struck by how modern many of the Iranians were. The author left the country and came to the US.
It could be there are people even in the government in Iran who look at Iraq and think they do not want to have to worry about those Americans coming after them. The trouble is how many of them are there and how much power {if any} do they have? I also think there is the issue of saving face and bravado and that goes along with all the chest pounding and threats from Iran and it might be they are afraid to back down. Afraid to look weak. I honestly do not know.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:54 PM
progress:
And is it best for us right now to launch an attack against Iran and like I said before can the President get authorization from a Democratic Congress to do that? Now? I am not saying it won’t come to that, but I am not sure if we are prepared for that, do we even know where all their sites are?
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Times a wastin’
J_Gocht on July 17, 2008 at 10:58 PM
J_Gocht:
I can not remember where I read it, or I would offer a link, but McCain supported the move. I don’t think it would cause him problems. Why would it?
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Mr. Lynn:
I am not so sure about that. Not so long ago I would have agreed, but I am not so sure what Israel would do now.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 11:02 PM
In fact I think that we might do something like cut off their gas imports first. We could take out their refineries and shut off their gas imports and the country would come to a halt. Time will tell I guess.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 11:04 PM
I think we could actually cause a democratic revolution Iran, based on the attitudes of ordinary Iranians, if the Democrats in congress weren’t really for the long-bearded ones in government there (and they would leak the hell out of it to the NYT, if anybody even tried such a thing)…well that, and the ‘progressives’ in the CIA would screw it up so badly that they would probably get every Iranian who supported it killed…but yeah, other than that, it could work.
AUINSC on July 17, 2008 at 11:07 PM
I’m not saying that either – though there were more than a few times in the past that I thought were good windows for ratcheting up the real military pressure on Iran but we passed on all of them.
I’m just against such a public turn-around in policy, unless it’s a diversion of some sort. But I’ve been massively disappointed in Bush’s foreign policy over the whole of his second term. Bush has given me the impression, for some time now, that he is going to leave office with Iran humming along as before. Time is almost up and this just seems the logical progression of that. I am just further disappointed.
progressoverpeace on July 17, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Iran is going to become a nuclear power no matter what we do. Pakistan’s entry into the nuclear club proved that the UN/ international policing strategy was a toothless threat. Whether or not we have diplomatic personnel working out of the Swiss Embassy, Iran is going to be the next member of the club.
I’ll turn the question around on you. What benefit has there been in virtually ignoring Iran for over 30 years despite their geostrategically important location? Opening lines of communication with a hostile government is not a declaration that Iran is now America’s BFF. If not now, when would you deal with the Iranian government?
highhopes on July 17, 2008 at 11:08 PM
One thing I do not doubt is Bush’s position on Iran and their nuclear ambitions. There is something seriouly at play here. I think Burns may be there to authenticate the Iranian response rather than leaving that up to interpretation by the other partners in the negotiations.
Still .. I can’t believe that Iran would allow the Great Satan’s spawn to set up shop in Tehran.
Texas Gal on July 17, 2008 at 11:08 PM
progress:
I guess I don’t see it as a turn around, it is a development. It remains to be seen what if anything comes from it. I just think that there might be more going on here than we know.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 11:11 PM
AUINSC:
A democratic revolution in Iran would be the best outcome for everyone. The greatest fear of them getting the nukes, is that the mullahs just might be genocidal enough to use them. A different sort of regime would remove that threat.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Texas Gal:
I tend to agree.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 11:14 PM
The thing is people jump to the gun too much. They want to know everything about everything all the time. As if the government is obligated to provide full disclosure. Not when it comes to stuff like this they aren’t. That means, we don’t really know what all is going on here and maybe that is not such a bad thing. loose lips and all that. No doubt, Seymor Hersch will be doing a new story soon and tell us all about it.
Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Then we will see a bloodbath of biblical proportions. It will be ugly. Of course, we have only ourselves to blame for ever allowing the idiotic UN to handle anything of importance. That sort of stupidity is totally inexcusable.
Fair enough. While many Euroscum might still do business with Iran, the fact that Iran was totally cut off from the US kept it in a special place in the geopolitical world. It was still an official pariah, whether anyone agreed or not. They knew that dealing with Iran put them at odds with the US. Once we start having open relations, like this, with Iran, it now moves Iran off of that special place and makes it more acceptable for others to do even more business with Iran. This might not sound like much, but I believe it to be of consequence and very serious. One crack will release a torrent … at least, to my mind it will.
We’ve seen how brazen Iran has been and now they have been punished with new relations.
progressoverpeace on July 17, 2008 at 11:18 PM
The really important audience, though, is them. I have a feeling that they will see it as a turn-around. As you say, we’ll see.
I certainly hope so. I pray so.
progressoverpeace on July 17, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Remember the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution back in the 1970s? I still remember a photo of a ransacked Western-style hotel where a countless number of magazines, booze, and records (those black things with holes in the middle that were in vogue before CDs) had been piled up for burning.
The unknown factor in Iran is that the nation was very Westernized and progressive (within limits) under the Shah. Iranians still remember that time or have heard the stories from their families. That makes the dynamic different from most Islamic theocracies. The seeds are there for influencing the Iranian people to force their government to re-join the international community. We can’t help with that if we continue a 30-year-old snub.
highhopes on July 17, 2008 at 11:29 PM
LOL. It isn’t George who is ushering in Hopenchange. It is the Baby Boomers who were brought up believing that kids have a right to kick and scream on the grocery store floor.
Limerick on July 17, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Good points. I would argue that Iran’s “official pariah” status is breaking down in much the same way that Iraq was brazenly doing armaments business with the French and Russians before the US invasion. There simply is a limit to how long such measures are effective. Setting up a special interests section may or may not encourage a further breakdown but it hardly is the catalyst that started the process.
Much as I’m not happy about it, I see this action as the next logical step in stabilizing the region. Our progress in Iran can be completely be undone unless we deal with the crazy neighbor. The only thing I find interesting is that GWB opted to do this in the closing months of his Presidency instead of leaving it for Obama in January.
highhopes on July 17, 2008 at 11:43 PM
I would agree. And a lot depends on how much we are willing to back up our policy. Every time Iran pushed, we backed off. But you are right, that was breaking down. The “official” end is still a special point.
Agreed.
I again agree. I am just stuck on the main point of our dealings with Iran revolving around the nuclear issue. I look at all developements with respect to Iran through this prism.
I find this very odd.
progressoverpeace on July 17, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Sorry Limerick.. I couldn’t resist… as a baby boomer myself.. the free-to-be-me .. and .. I-don’t-care-if-I- invade-your-space generation doubled down.
Texas Gal on July 18, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »