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.

. . . I am not so sure what Israel would do now.

Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 11:02 PM

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.

A frequent complaint of the Iranians is that they want to deal directly with the Americans instead of its surrogates, Britain, France and Germany.

US interests in the country at present are looked after by the Swiss embassy.

The special interests section would be similar to the one in Havana, Cuba.

The special interests section carries out all the functions of an embassy. It is, in terms of protocol, part of the Swiss embassy but otherwise is staffed by Americans and independent of the Swiss.

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.

Condoleezza Rice, who told reporters: “We want more Iranians visiting the United States … We are determined to reach out to the Iranian people.”

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.

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?

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?

MB4 on July 17, 2008 at 10:00 PM

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!?

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.

Earlier on FOXNews, Ambassador John Bolton said this makes it harder for Israel to take military action against Iran.

Good point.

Texas Gal on July 18, 2008 at 12:02 AM

No problem. We’re both on point. :)

LOL. It isn’t George who is ushering in Hopenchange. It is the Baby Boomers who were brought up believing that kids their grandkids have a right to kick and scream on the grocery store floor.

Limerick on July 17, 2008 at 11:32 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.

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.

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.

Setting up a special interests section may or may not encourage a further breakdown but it hardly is the catalyst that started the process.

Agreed.

Much as I’m not happy about it, I see this action as the next logical step in stabilizing the region. Our progress in Iraq [I assume you meant that] can be completely be undone unless we deal with the crazy neighbor.

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.

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 find this very odd.

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

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.

If so, then the era of Hopenchange is upon us.

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.

I was struck by how modern many of the Iranians were.

Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 10:54 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.

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.

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 just think that there might be more going on here than we know.

Terrye on July 17, 2008 at 11:11 PM

I certainly hope so. I pray so.

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.

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.

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

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.

I tend to agree.

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.

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 10:34 PM

jerrytbg on July 17, 2008 at 10:33 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.