- ‹ previous
- 2743 of 8806
- next ›
Washington's Iran Pivot: How Big a Shift?
Even as some Washington observers were still marveling at the Bush administration's decision to send a diplomatic envoy to international nuclear talks with Iran to be held in Geneva this weekend, some analysts and close administration associates cautioned that the Bush administration really had not changed its underlying demand that Iran halt uranium enrichment before agreeing to sustained negotiations, and that the new diplomatic approach could be stillborn.
"If [Tehran agreeing to] zero enrichment is the expressed [US] objective, then this could be dead on arrival," said Trita Parsi, president of the pro-engagement National Iranian American Council. "If [the US] is more flexible, and will consider something along [former US diplomat Thomas] Pickering's plan," for an internationally supervised nuclear enrichment facility in Tehran, then the talks might have some momentum, he said.
"Nothing has changed," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday. "If they don't accept this offer, one, there will not be negotiations and two, there will be additional sanctions."
"The substantive position remains unchanged -- substantive negotiations on the issues await Iranian suspension of uranium enrichment," said Philip Zelikow, former advisor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. US Iran envoy William J. "Burns will personally reinforce that message and join the Europeans in hearing the response.
"The US and our allies are against unconditional negotiations," Zelikow continued. "Our main allies, like our government, don't believe that talking is an end in itself. Otherwise we'll talk and talk; they'll build and build. Not a formula likely to relax tension.
"Instead talks have to be part of a plausible strategy, a means to an end," he continued. "The objective is to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment. The chosen strategy, at this time, is still to bring maximum peaceful pressure on the Iranian regime to make that choice."
"The challenge for Iran is to convince everyone that our goal is being realized (note the grammar here, as this is a continuous process that extends indefinitely into the future), and that means building confidence first through a suspension of enrichment while we work out arrangements that achieve our goal with extremely high confidence," said one US official closely involved with Iran policy in an email. "If Iran wants to create a nuclear weapon, as many suspect, then they will resist the necessary measures to convince us that our goal is being realized and this will go nowhere fast. Keep your eye on that ball and you will know where this is going. But if the Iranians have decided to declare victory and work this out, then much is possible.
"Diplomacy is the art of letting the other guy have your way," he added. "Let's see what happens next."
(Photo of Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns, courtesy of the State Department.)
Your anonymous source doesn't make this venture sound too promising if his view of "diplomacy" is nothing more than a cheap feint to either trick your opponent or show them in a bad light. It suggests that Bush isn't serious about diplomacy and is simply trying to put his spin on future talks with Iran by the Obama camp.
The Iranians have made a serious offer of compromise that has been endorsed by international experts (multilateral enrichment on Iranian soil) It deserves real diplmatic consideration, not cheap PR tactics. But perhaps we really don't want to resolve the issue after all.
Haass, I read the US administration official's statement as hinting however cautiously of far more of an opening for Iran and the US to reach an accomodation. Read it again, understand where that person might be sitting, and read a bit beyond the constraints to see the possibilities for opening there.
Laura,
It's really hard to accuse the Bush administration of "rushing" to war here. They are making a lot of effort to avoid war. I think there is a possibility that Iran is going to be told this is there last chance to knock off their nuclear program before the U.S. won't be able to refrain the Israelis. The consequences would be HORRIBLE if the U.S. or Israel were to take out the nuclear facilities in Iran because of Iran's reaction but Iran acquiring nukes (and serious people know they are trying to) is really a nightmare situation.
You people all miss the point. Bush and Congress are puppets of AIPAC. They are the best hoes that money can buy. Israel demands that American blood and taxpayer money get rid of their middle eastern rival Iran, who has oil and Israel has none. Now this would clearly benefit Israel and not the American gas consumers, mother(who son's blood will be shed for Israel and their Zionist supporters). It is time that the American people raise up and tell the Zionists, no more wars for Israel. If America does attack Iran, there will be severe economic hardships suffered by the masses and be prepared for an upraising by the American masses that hasn't been seen since Kristallnacht.
Let's have a big round of applause for Reichsfuhrer Ted!
Come on you Brownshirts, let's hear it for him!!
Yes, that's JUST the kind of thinking we need to finally put an end to the International Jewish Conspiracy!
Carter in his book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" , pg 209, "...(I)n the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media..." In other words, Zionists dominate the US media. "At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes." "Citizens in 15 European nations, indicate that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace."
In Arron David Miller's book, "The Much Too Promised Land", he states that "no ethnic group has the power and focus of the American-Jewish community." "Today you cannot be successful in American politics and not be good on Israel." London review of books, The Israel Lobby , by John Mearsheimer(U of Chicago)and Stephen Walt(Harvard U) (book endorsed by former Carter Security Advisor Brzezinski)"Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population, they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates 'depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the money'. And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to antagonize them."
Ted, you are an anti-Semite, and Horst, you are suspect.
Ted, you are right. We as American are sick and tried of wars, wars for Israel, wars for all the big oil company's with big lobbyist with deep pocket. We are really sick and tried of seeing our roads, schools, health care and society suffer. Enough is enough.
Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Israel is not. Who has a bomb? Not Iran.
Iran has nuclear weapons inspectors from the IAEA. Israel does not. Who has a bomb? Not Iran.
Sixteen (all of them in other words) of our intelligence agencies agreed unanimously that a) Iran does NOT have a bomb, and b) they are not likely to get one in the forseeable future. OTOH, Israel HAS a bomb.
Since Iran is a signatory to the NNPT, it has the right under that treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Which they are doing, and being inspected by the IAEA.
Lastly, it's not much of a 'negotiation' if you require the other party to agree unequivocally to agree to/perform whatever the supposed topic of the 'negotiation' is - before you have the negotiation. That is not and never has been a negotiation - that is a unilateral demand. Period.
I like the use of the words 'some people believe' that Iran is getting a bomb. That would be George Bush and Dick Cheney I suppose, since all the intelligence (intelligent) types say no.
Supreme Ayatollah Ali al-Khamenie stated in 2003 that nuclear weapons and Islam were incompatible. The NIE stated that 2003 was when the Iranian weapons development program STOPPED.
Any question about who is in charge in Iran was completely settled by that.
The Iranians have continually and still are helping us with our little wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In return they get threats of sanctions and McCain singing bomb bomb Iran. Really good diplomacy here!
The neocon loons in Washington are just itching to start a war with another Islamic country to provoke a patriotic response from the dumb American public in order to get John McCain (AKA McSame ) elected president. The characterization of the Iran peaceful nuclear program as as military threat provides an excuse for these people to bomb Iran.
Nixon Papers Recall Concerns on Israel's Weapons
"There is circumstantial evidence that some fissionable material available for Israel's weapons development was illegally obtained from the United States about 1965," Mr. Kissinger noted in his long memorandum.
One problem with trying to persuade Israel to freeze its nuclear program is that inspections would be useless, Mr. Kissinger said, conceding that "we could never cover all conceivable Israeli hiding places."
"This is one program on which the Israelis have persistently deceived us," Mr. Kissinger said, "and may even have stolen from us."
Israel has never officially acknowledged that it has nuclear weapons, but scientists and arms experts have almost no doubt that it does. The United States's reluctance to press Israel to disarm has made America vulnerable to accusations that it is a preacher with a double standard when it comes to stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.
Mr. Kissinger's memo, written barely two years after the Six-Day War and while memories of the Holocaust were still vivid among the first Israelis, implicitly acknowledged Israel's right to defend itself, as subsequent American administrations have done.
After President Nixon met Prime Minister Meir at the White House in late September 1969, he said: "The problems in the Mideast go back centuries. They are not susceptible to easy solution. We do not expect them to be susceptible to instant diplomacy."
America should not succumb to New York Jewish hysteria. Many Jews in Israel know that war with Iran is not the answer.
A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 18 countries finds that in 14 of them people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just three countries favor taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran, and Turkey) and one is divided (India). No country favors taking Israel's side, including the United States, where 71 percent favor taking neither side.
The worldwide consensus is crystal clear -- citizens want their Governments to be neutral and even-handed in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, not tilted towards either side. And that consensus is shared not just by a majority of American citizens, but by the overwhelming majority. Few political views, particularly on controversial issues, attract more than 70% support among American citizens. But the proposition that the U.S. Government should be even-handed -- rather than tilting towards Israel -- attracts that much support. That's not an "anti-Israeli" view -- to the contrary, it's a position that America can and should resolve that violent, four-decades-long dispute by being even-handed rather than one-sided.
Similarly, when asked "How well do you think Israel is doing its part in the effort to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict," citizens around the world, by a large margin, believe that Israel is doing either "not very well" or "not well at all" (54% -- compared to 23% that say it's doing "very well" or "somewhat well"). And there, too, that worldwide view corresponds to American public opinion as well. 59% of Americans say Israel is doing either "not very well" or "not well at all" -- compared to only 30% that say it's doing "very well" or "somewhat well." And Palestinians don't fare much better worldwide (38-49%) and fare worse in the U.S. (15-75%).
Yet not only is the view of "even-handedness" completely unrepresented among mainstream political figures in the U.S., it's deemed political death to go anywhere near expressing that view. Back in 2003, then-presidential-candidate Howard Dean expressed the exact position favored by an overwhelming majority of Americans, yet triggered an intense and even ugly controversy by doing so and he immediately was neutralized. This shows who dominates the media in America(per Carter's book) and according to Wesley K. Clark, the power of the New York money.
Mother Jones - You have been duped by the Iranian regime. Trita Parsi is a notorious lobbiest for Tehran. (The pro-engagement position is paid for by themullahs.) Parsi previously worked in the office of discraced congressman Bob Ney (jailed for taking lobby money). Parsi has no scruples, works with the scum of the earth. You would do well to steer clear of him.
Mother Jones - You have been duped by the Iranian regime.
No, no..., it's not that.
It's just that any enemy of George W. Bush is a FRIEND of Ours.