Dear right wing friends. I'm actually applauding a Bush policy here. And all you seem to do is to discredit or minimize the relevance of this change of policy.

You don't see a U-turn? All we have heard about Iran in the past couple of weeks was sabre rattling on both (+Israeli) sides. Now the US is sending Burns (third in line in the State Department) to go and listen to Iranian diplomats, unconditionally. But furthermore, and this seems to have escaped you, the US is considering opening a diplomatic representation in Tehran. I don't know if you've been following up on US-Iranian relations, but that hasn't happened in 30 years, and goes beyond the discussions on the nuclear issue (well at least I believe the US didn't cut diplomatic ties because of a nuke program )

Iran: US will seek green light to open base in Tehran | World news | The Guardian

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

Yes, there is a more friendly approach. I want to know why there is this change all of a sudden.

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

Because Bush's White House is the kind of place where common sense goes to die. Bush just kind of gets backed into a corner, deflects, stubbornly supports his ideas no matter how dumb, and then when he gives in to common sense, he tries to make it look like he's being the big man for doing it. The funny thing is that North Korea and Iran basically forced the administration to pay attention to them again, because crossing your arms and doing nothing for so long just makes things worse.

I really do hope this gets somewhere though. The idea of a third simultaneous confrontation in the Middle East would be the death of me, I swear.

So whats the deal here...I seem to recall early on back in 02 03 the congress that is the dem side was screaming that bush was not doing all he could do ala engaging in talks with nor korea........so, he did, in mid 2006 he went along with multi lateral talks involving japan, china sou kor nor kor.

One can argue the results, but that’s not the point, the point is he did engage so speaking of bush as if he is totally non responsive to such is BS. He was accused of trying to go it alone not wishing to bend at all etc etc etc

....so,now, we have a coalition in the UN who has voted sanctions against Iran several times, along the lines of multilateral cooperation. THEY have been found by the IAEA to be in breech of several conditions as to the NPT etc...no one made this stuff up and Baradei is far from being our bitch. Iran has been intransigent. So now, multilateralism is no longer the yardstick, whatever.....


BUT because we are not talking to them directly, despite back channel comm.. via intermediaries, that’s not enough, we have to be at the table directly face to face, with a very high level operative.
I have made this point before, an event was scheduled in Egypt last year where in Iran’s foreign minister was to be there and Rice would be attending, the set up was they would casually bump into each and have an informal talk possibly opening the door to further talks, the minister decided to no show after in fact flying there and being present at the site, he stiffed her. That was Rice , the sec. of state, present and open to talks.

Are you aware that at the very time, Rice announced Burns would be attending the talks, Ahmadinejad was doing a Iranian TV interview saying nothing would change and as the talks began in Geneva, senior Iranian official Keyvan Imani restated his country's position that a suspension was "out of the question".

They know bush will be out of office in 6 months, they are as usual playing for more time ala the saddam 2 step. From the link-
At the meeting being led by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Jalili is expected to give Iran's definitive answer to incentives offered to Tehran last month by the United States and five other nations in exchange for its suspension of activities that can produce the ingredients needed for a bomb.

So, are some now positing that if say we were sitting their they would change their stance?
And frankly I see this as just a smoke screen. What if we crawled on our hands and knees and begged them to take the package there by guaranteeing to allay their ‘energy’ fears they claim drive their nuclear progression, that would appeal to their nature and they would agree? Yea and pigs have wings.

Those advocating our presence a imho don’t really care per se’ that we are there, they just want us to leave Iran alone and let them build their bomb, that’s appears to be the natural progression here. Hey that’s fine, but that’s tantamount to ignoring the UN treaty they signed ala the NPT etc. and of course their answer will be , well others have them , why not Iran/ I see that as a poor fall back and just more obfuscation and a denial of the proliferation platform.

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

I don't know if this is toward me, since I don't consider myself "right-wing," but... still, I do not mean to discredit or minimize the relevance of the administration's move. I was simply making a comment that it seemed you were overstating the relevance. It is a significant step, especially the considering of establishing a diplomatic presence, but right now, the man we're sending to the talks allegedly has no role but to repeat what the administration has been doing for a while now, except that he's doing it face-to-face (which is still a good thing IMO).

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

the fact that as I alluded to he is sitting in the room is further than we have gone in 30 years, to see that anything other than a U turn is denial...I am not saying you are, and those that see this as some victory over the evil neo con right wing attack dogs is simply uneducated as to other events, ala Libya and Nor Korea. Its just about the usual, the hate.

Sending him will send a message that Ahmadinejad will use to his benefit, while giving exactly zero, that’s not diplomacy nor negotiation, which are 2 different things. Looking at history, you don’t get someone to the table and negotiating just by being there, the Nor Viets, libya, Nor Kor. Etc...the diplomacy that led to the negotiations was long and involved, starting as usual out of the light of day , each compromising and angling for advantage , until the break through came.
The problem here though is after 25 years the Iranians are so close they will not negotiate, either the lever doesn’t exist that will make them amendable or there isn’t one at all.

The issue is imho, simple, “they” those other than perhaps us and certainly the Israelis at the end of the day don’t want to face the simple fact that, Iran will not stop. They are and will create the material to build and develop and finally detonate a nuke, announcing there presence on the stage of the world as a nuke power. And that “they”, don’t want to face the fact- either we do something about it, or just let them be, but don’t want to admit they will not do something about it, so they dance.

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

I realized you were going to react to that Luap, the moment I posted that message . Rest assured, apart from some very clear exemplars, I don't tend to stick labels on people's foreheads. Consider the news about the diplomatic presence as a reply to your post.

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

We've had a "mission" in other countries before; like Cuba now for many years. It still hasn't lead to normalised relations.

Same in Libya and we didn't re-open an embassy in Trippoli until a few years ago when Gadaffi agreed to dismantle the country's ambition to develop WMD.

For 2012 and 2016.

Because after all these years of tough talk, it's a no-brainer that 6 more months of tough talk won't accomplish anything.
If you tough talk for another six months, and then Obama starts talking and everything falls into place, then Obama gets all the credit.
If you start talking, you can claim that any success Obama has was just building on the Bush diplomatic initiative.
If talking doesn't work you can claim it was all Obama's idea, because you really don't have too many fingerprints on the process.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

The whole event of sending Burns in on a short leash doesn't strike me as that dramatic of a change, but you seem educated on the history of US-Iran relations (and US-we-don't-like-your-state relations). So I do trust your judgment that this is significant, but we'll have to see the results before making true judgments of the policy change.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

thats all based on a false premise....

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

This is, IMHO, a silly and fatally over-simplified view of the situation.

It's been 30 years since the US had a formal diplomatic presence in Iran. Some might recall why this is - the US embassy in Iran was invaded, and the Iranian government allowed it (at a minimum).

That sort of conduct is unheard of in civilized nations.

In the intervening time, no US administration has come close to restoring relations - no matter what party they represented.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Thank you and to be clear, to an extent this is a political stunt, to rob Obama of an issue. BUT as I have stipulated earlier, we have attempted to create the atmosphere for dialogue before and have been unsuccessful.
Lets flip this, the only reason the Iranians ambassador is sitting in the room with Burns is because they wish to buy time and it will cost them zero, yet it will accrue a benefit to Iranian oligarchs, which escapes most folks.

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

It comforts me to know that I don't have a label ready to be stuck to my forehead. If a diplomatic presence is officially established in Iran... well, it has my support, and I'd have to acknowledge that is a complete change from previous policy. Hopefully it happens.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

I don't see much of a U-turn here. Very little is going to change from dialog with Iran when they have no intention of changing the drive for uranium enrichment (in my opinion) and we certainly have no intention of changing being against that effort.

Our protection of our interests and allies over there including the horrifying thought of Iran's government in control of weapons of that strenght should keep any dialog with Iran short and meaningless. All that will come of this will be a few photo ops, Eurpean Union running around claiming talks are constructive, United Nations being happy with someone talking to someone without resolution number 20 or whatever we are up to, and perhaps... just perhaps... a talk down in threats. Well, probably not on that last part.

Anyone out there actually think we will get anywhere with Iran in the short-term? Long-term?