UPDATE: More from Laura Rozen.
UPDATE: If you haven't seen Rep. Jane Harman's post for the Agonist, it's a worthy read. She takes a strong stance against any war with Iran.
 |
It's the latest political game show. You know, like trading nuclear rods for mangos. But if you believe Bush really wants to
talk to Iran, you must also believe Amir Taheri is an honest broker for progress
in the region.
Get a load of this headline, for starters: U.S.
Sets Conditions for Talks With Iran. Talk about gullible. As if we
can set talks with anyone at this point.
Let's not forget what happened with Iraq. Before the invasion the UAE tried
to broker an exile deal for Saddam
to get him out of the country. Meanwhile, the White House was busy floating
stories how it
wouldn't work, with the OSP
going full tilt for war all along.
We found out this year it was bomb or bust for Bush
and Blair: “PM promised to be 'solidly behind' US invasion with
or without UN backing.” (source)
Nothing is ever as it seems on the surface.
We also know Bush always leaves his minions plausible deniability. Look what happened to his last secretary of
state, who sat at the U.N. holding up a vile of salt trying to scare the pants
off everyone so they'd push preemption. It worked, too.
Sure, the wingnuts are desperate to believe in Bush again. Almost as
desperate as he is to have Republicans believe in him again. But puh-leaze,
don't fall for this diplomacy charade.
Besides, the failure is written into the language. Read it and watch out for the snapping
trap.
“To underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance
prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends
its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will
come to the table with our European colleagues and meet with Iran's representatives,”
Rice said today. She said the proposal has been conveyed to Iran through the
Swiss government.“We urge Iran to make this choice for peace, to abandon its ambition
for nuclear weapons,” Rice said.Refusal to do so, she said, “will lead to international isolation and
progressively stronger political and economic sanctions.”She added: “We are agreed with our European partners on the essential
elements of a package containing both benefits if Iran makes the right choice
and costs if it does not. We hope that, in the coming days, the Iranian government
will thoroughly consider this proposal.”In response to questions, Rice refused to be pinned down on whether China
and Russia — two nations that hold U.N. Security Council vetoes and have
opposed sanctions against Iran so far — have reached agreement with Washington
to support sanctions in the event negotiations fail.Rice said the U.S. proposal will help determine “whether Iran is serious
about negotiations or not.” …
Iran has
said over and over again they will not stop their enrichment, which is
at around 4.5% (up from 3.5%), with 90% needed for a bomb. Also remember that when Ahmadinejad
sent a letter to Bush, there was a second letter offering a clear cut plan
out. Nobody covered the second letter, except a few progressive blogs, which was actually the important reach out from Iran to Bush.
 |
| Personally, I like the Truman model? How 'bout you? |
So why now?
I'm all for talks with Iran, but not simply as a front so Bush can say he tried. It's likely that Condi is clueless, just like Colin. But we've been here before. Fool me once, shame on me* … blah-blah-blah.
Last time President Bush and the administration reached out to a target we got war. If
Seymour
Hersh is right, June will be the bombing month. Pick out your summer pith helmet now.
*NOTE: Correction made – thanks to cujo359, in comments. On second thought, I'm with James on this one.
Comments are closed.